https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=195902 A carrier remained liable for cargo damage after transporting goods contrary to the bill of lading, which prohibited transshipment and required discharge at Chennai Port. The carrier instead moved the cargo to Mumbai and arranged rail transport to Chennai without informing the consignee, and the damage arose after this unauthorized handling through an agent engaged on its behalf. Reliance on the Customs Act and the Major Port Trusts Act failed because the dispute arose from breach of the carriage contract, not lawful port or customs authorization. The concurrent findings of fact disclosed no substantial question of law in second appeal, so the decree for the plaintiffs was left undisturbed. en-us Tue, 31 Jan 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 13 Nov 2017 21:50:33 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=195902 A carrier remained liable for cargo damage after transporting goods contrary to the bill of lading, which prohibited transshipment and required discharge at Chennai Port. The carrier instead moved the cargo to Mumbai and arranged rail transport to Chennai without informing the consignee, and the damage arose after this unauthorized handling through an agent engaged on its behalf. Reliance on the Customs Act and the Major Port Trusts Act failed because the dispute arose from breach of the carriage contract, not lawful port or customs authorization. The concurrent findings of fact disclosed no substantial question of law in second appeal, so the decree for the plaintiffs was left undisturbed. Case-Laws Customs Tue, 31 Jan 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=195902