TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2009 (9) TMI 464
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... case of the Plaintiff is that two consignments said to contain 60 cartons and 20 cartons of Polyester Fabric were discharged by the vessel on to the docks at Mumbai. The consignments were manifested under items 76 and 77 of Import General Manifest No. 1700 dated 15th November, 1984. A copy of the Import General Manifest was furnished by the Second Defendant to the Plaintiff on behalf of the vessel. The general landing date and the last free day of the cargo fell on 15th November, 1984 and 19th November, 1984 respectively. The goods were confiscated on 1st December, 1986 in exercise of powers conferred by Section 111(d) of the Customs Act read with Section 3(2) of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947 by the Collector of Customs, Bomb....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y by the vessel and that there was a failure on the part of the Plaintiff to dispose of the cargo soon after the period of two months from the date of landing. 6. On these facts, as pleaded by the parties, the following issues were drawn up : (1) Whether the Second Defendants were the Bailors of the suit consignment and as such were bound and liable to pay Port Trust charges as claimed in paragraph 5 of the Plaint; (2) Whether the suit consignment was confiscated by the Collector of Customs vide order dated 1st December, 1986 as alleged in paragraph 6 of the Plaint; (3) Whether the Defendants are bound and liable to pay the sum of Rs. 2,15,851.80 paise as Port Trust charges for the period prior to the date of confiscation together with ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tters dated 14th August, 1987 and 3rd September, 1987 - Exhibits P-3 and P-5 - the Second Defendants expressly held themselves out as agents of Maersk Line. In the affidavit in lieu of the examination in chief the Plaintiff's witness deposed that two consignments containing 80 cartons of Polyester Fabric were discharged by the vessel on to the docks at Mumbai. A copy of the Import General Manifest was furnished to the Plaintiff by the Second Defendants on behalf of the vessel. The liability of a vessel agent as owner would arise for the purposes of Section 2(o) of the Major Port Trust Act, 1963 in his capacity as an agent for the sale, custody, loading or unloading of such goods. The Plaintiff discharged the initial burden of establishing t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... agent has duly endorsed the bill of lading or issued the delivery order, the obligation to deliver the goods personally to the owner or to the endorsee comes to an end. In other words, upon the endorsement of the bill of lading and the issuance of a delivery order, the property in the goods passes to the endorsee. The judgment of the Supreme Court contains the following extract from the judgment of the Madras High Court which was in appeal in that case: "It cannot be said that the steamer or its agents have undertaken any responsibility for the custody of the goods after the transit has come to an end and after the bill of lading has been duly endorsed or a delivery order issued. By the endorsement of the bill of lading or the issue of a ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... these circumstances, the first issue will have to be answered in the affirmative. Issue No. 2 12. The consignment was confiscated by the Collector of Customs by his order dated 1st December, 1986. A copy of the order of confiscation has been marked as Exhibit P-l by consent of parties. Issue No. 3 13. The Plaintiffs have led evidence to establish the manner in which the computation of the pre confiscation charges in the amount of Rs. 2,15,851.80 was worked out. The working sheet was marked in evidence as Exhibit P-6 subject to cross examination. The witness for the Plaintiff was asked as to whether the working sheet was prepared under his supervision. The witness stated that he would not be able to tell the name of the person who had p....