1989 (12) TMI 56 - HC - Customs

Court dismisses suit, finding defendants not liable for charges claimed by plaintiffs. Limitation, ownership, liability issues resolved in defendants' favor.

BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE BOM. PORT TRUST Versus SUN EXPORT CORPN.

BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE BOM. PORT TRUST Versus SUN EXPORT CORPN. - 1990 (48) E.L.T. 192 (Bom.) Issues Involved:1. Whether the suit is barred by the law of limitationRs.2. Whether the defendants were the importers and/or owners of the goods mentioned in para 4 of the plaintRs.3. Whether the plaintiffs were not entitled to take charge of the consignment mentioned in the plaint except on the request of the owners of the goods as provided under the Major Port Trust ActRs.4. Whether the defendants were under an obligation or were bound to apply for and take delivery of the said goods and to clear the same within seven clear days as alleged in paras 6 and 9 of the plaintRs.5. Whether the defendants were bound and liable to pay wharfage, demurrage, and other charges as alleged in para 6 of the plaint or at allRs.6. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to claim demurrage and other charges in respect of the said goods for the period subsequent to the period of one month from the date on which the goods were taken in their custody, that is, for the period subsequent to the 30th August, 1974Rs.7. Whether the plaintiffs abandoned or waived or forfeited their claim in respect of their dues and are estopped from making a claim in respect thereof against the defendants and/or Laxmi Engineering Co., as alleged in para 8 of the written statementRs.8. Whether the defendants are bound and liable to pay to the plaintiffs a sum of Rs.1,58,545.10/- as per exhibit 'B' to the plaint or any part thereof either with interest at the rate of 12% per annum or at any other rateRs.9. To what reliefs are the plaintiffs entitledRs.Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:Issue No. 1: Whether the suit is barred by the law of limitationRs.The plaintiffs argued that the suit was within the limitation period since the order of confiscation was dated February 28, 1976, and the limitation period started from that date. They relied on a judgment by Variava, J., which followed an earlier Division Bench judgment stating that the cause of action arises when the balance amount is ascertained post-adjudication by Customs Authorities. The defendants contended that the suit should have been filed within three years from the date the charge is leviable. The court found that the suit was within the limitation period, agreeing with Variava, J.'s observations and the earlier Division Bench judgment.Issue No. 2: Whether the defendants were the importers and/or owners of the goods mentioned in para 4 of the plaintRs.The plaintiffs claimed the defendants were the 'owners' under the Bombay Port Trust Act, 1879, as they had financial interest in the goods. The defendants argued they were merely agents acting under a letter of authority from M/s. Laxmi Engineering Co. The court concluded that the defendants, as holders of a letter of authority, could not be considered owners within the meaning of the Act, as they were not agents for custody or sale of the goods.Issue No. 3: Whether the plaintiffs were not entitled to take charge of the consignment mentioned in the plaint except on the request of the owners of the goods as provided under the Major Port Trust ActRs.The court noted that the relevant provision of the Major Port Trust Act, 1963, came into force on February 1, 1975, and thus did not apply to the case. The defendants did not press this issue further.Issue No. 4: Whether the defendants were under an obligation or were bound to apply for and take delivery of the said goods and to clear the same within seven clear days as alleged in paras 6 and 9 of the plaintRs.The court found that even if the defendants did not clear the goods, the plaintiffs could still claim demurrage or other charges against the owner of the goods. The issue did not survive as the main question was whether the defendants were liable to pay the charges.Issue No. 5: Whether the defendants were bound and liable to pay wharfage, demurrage, and other charges as alleged in para 6 of the plaint or at allRs.The court determined that the defendants, acting under a letter of authority, were not liable to pay the charges as they were not considered owners within the meaning of the Act.Issue No. 6: Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to claim demurrage and other charges in respect of the said goods for the period subsequent to the period of one month from the date on which the goods were taken in their custody, that is, for the period subsequent to the 30th August, 1974Rs.The court affirmed that the plaintiffs were entitled to claim demurrage charges until the order of confiscation.Issue No. 7: Whether the plaintiffs abandoned or waived or forfeited their claim in respect of their dues and are estopped from making a claim in respect thereof against the defendants and/or Laxmi Engineering Co., as alleged in para 8 of the written statementRs.The court found no evidence to support the defendants' claim that the plaintiffs had abandoned, waived, or forfeited their claim.Issue No. 8: Whether the defendants are bound and liable to pay to the plaintiffs a sum of Rs.1,58,545.10/- as per exhibit 'B' to the plaint or any part thereof either with interest at the rate of 12% per annum or at any other rateRs.The court concluded that the defendants were not liable to pay the amount claimed by the plaintiffs.Issue No. 9: To what reliefs are the plaintiffs entitledRs.The court dismissed the suit, stating that the defendants were not liable for the charges claimed by the plaintiffs. There was no order as to costs.Conclusion:The suit was dismissed, and the court found that the defendants were not liable for the charges claimed by the plaintiffs. The issues of limitation, ownership, and liability for charges were all decided in favor of the defendants.