TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1995 (3) TMI 105
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....soning of the High Court in this respect. "In the face of the above provisions, the question is as to who is liable for the demurrage charges in relation to the goods which were in the custody of the Port Trust till they were ultimately confiscated by the customs authorities. It cannot be disputed that neither the ship owner or the steamer agent whose duty it is to deliver the cargo to the consignee as per the contract with the shipper, cannot lay any claim of ownership to the goods. The obligation to deliver the goods to the consignee has been taken over by the Port Trust under the provisions of the statute and the shipowner is relieved of the liability for loss or damage to the goods from the moment the goods are taken charge of by the P....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....operty in the goods passes to the consignee or endorsee till the customs authorities actually give a clearance. It should also be remembered that the steamer which has entered into a contract of carriage of goods for a reward cannot be said to have undertaken the responsibility of safeguarding the goods or keeping them at their risk till the goods are actually cleared from the customs and taken delivery of by the consignee. That will be imposing a too onerous and unexpected responsibility on the steamer which is only a carrier. If they are submitted to such a responsibility, in most cases where the goods are detained without delivery in the hands of the Port Trust at the instance of the Customs the Steamer or Steamer agents have to pay towa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....airman v. K.P.V. Sheik Mohd. Rowther and Co., 1963 Supp. (2) SCR 915 in support of his contention that it is the "steamer agent" who is liable to pay the charges. The reliance was placed on this judgment before the High Court also. The High Court distinguished the judgment, from the facts of the present case, on the following reasoning : "But as already stated, the charges in that case related to the services rendered by the Port Trust at the time of the landing of the goods and their removal thereafter to its custody, and those charges were taken to be for the benefit of the steamer. It is for this reason that the Court took the view that the Port Trust is entitled to collect the service charges from the steamer or its agent. We are, howe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....charge demurrages for the imported goods in its custody and make the importer or consignee liable for the same even for periods during which he/it was unable to clear the goods from the Customs area due to fault on the part of the Customs authorities or of other authorities who might have issued detention certificates owning such fault." For the reasons given above, we dismiss the appeal. No costs. All interlocutory applications are dismissed. 4.C.A. Nos. 425/80 and 1909/80 - These appeals are dismissed in view of the order passed in C.A. No. 605/75. 5.C.A. No. 843/76 - The amount involved in this appeal is only Rs. 3,365/-. We are not inclined to hear this appeal on merits. We leave the question of law, if any, open to be decided in an ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... with the writ petitions, felt that apart from the fact that no counter-affidavit was filed even on substance, the demands could not be supported. He, therefore, quashed the demand orders. Hence these appeals. Mr. Parasaran, appearing for the Department, has a counter-affidavit ready and seeks leave to file it. In the particular circumstances, we have granted leave. The counter affidavit will be treated as part of the record in the appeal. But, in our opinion, the counter-affidavit makes no difference whatever to validity of the order made by the learned Judge. The vessels, which brought wheat and milo, indisputably were foreign vessels owned or operated by foreign shipping companies, but because of the defects which we have mentioned, the....