Short landing liability under customs law upheld where manifest and discharge measurements proved cargo shortage despite bill of lading reliance.

Manifest entries under Section 30 of the Customs Act control the cargo stated by the vessel, and a carrier cannot evade liability for short landing by relying only on a bill of lading clause. Ullage certificates were treated as evidence of the quantity on board at arrival, not of the quantity actually discharged. In the absence of any allegation of pilferage or leakage in the pipeline, tank measurements at the discharge ports were accepted as the best available evidence of the quantity landed. The short landing finding and consequential penalty were upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the penalty imposed for short landing of imported cargo was sustainable on the basis of the quantity shown in the import manifest and tank measurements, despite reliance on the bill of lading and ullage certificates.

Analysis: The manifest under Section 30 of the Customs Act required the master or agent to state the cargo brought by the vessel. Once the cargo was described in the manifest, the carrier could not avoid responsibility by relying on a bill of lading clause. The ullage reports showed only the quantity on board at arrival, not the quantity actually discharged. In the absence of any allegation of pilferage or leakage in the pipeline, tank measurement at the ports of discharge was treated as the next best available evidence of the quantity actually landed.

Conclusion: The penalty order was held to be valid in fact and in law, and the appeal was dismissed.

Final Conclusion: The short landing determination and consequential penalty were upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the manifest and discharge measurements establish short landing, a carrier cannot escape liability merely by relying on the bill of lading or ullage certificates when no intervening pilferage or leakage is shown.

---