https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=251373 The carrier was not liable for alleged short delivery where the bill of lading weight reflected the consignor's declaration and not proof of the actual cargo loaded on board. The consignee's own letter to the insurer indicated that the full cargo had been delivered and that the shortage arose later from theft or pilferage while the goods were in port trust premises after discharge. On that footing, the loss was attributable to events after delivery by the carrier, and the absence of a customs manifest did not justify an adverse inference against the carrier. The suit claim therefore failed on the core liability issue. en-us Tue, 17 Sep 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 12 Sep 2014 10:01:10 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=251373 The carrier was not liable for alleged short delivery where the bill of lading weight reflected the consignor's declaration and not proof of the actual cargo loaded on board. The consignee's own letter to the insurer indicated that the full cargo had been delivered and that the shortage arose later from theft or pilferage while the goods were in port trust premises after discharge. On that footing, the loss was attributable to events after delivery by the carrier, and the absence of a customs manifest did not justify an adverse inference against the carrier. The suit claim therefore failed on the core liability issue. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 17 Sep 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=251373