TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1997 (10) TMI 65
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....that the goods covered by the consignment were liable to confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 for various reasons detailed in the order. Option to redeem the goods was, therefore, given to the appellant on payment of Rs. 2,00,000/- as penalty. 2.Since, the goods were not recovered from the warehouse at Indira Docks, the respondent, Bombay Port Trust authorities served a notice on appellant No. 1, on April 19, 1976, informing it about the non-clearance of the consignment and calling upon it to do the needful and pay the dues of the Port Trust. Appellant No. 1 informed the Port Trust on May 24, 1976 that the Bill of Entry was being completed and that the goods would be cleared and at the time of clearances, charges would also be paid. Since, the goods had not been cleared. On October 6, 1976, the Port Trust informed respondent No. 1 that demurrage charges amounting to Rs. 1,58,545.10 ps. were due "up to the date of confiscation" and called upon appellant No. 1 to remit the said amount. Since, there was no response, the Port Trust sent a reminder to appellant No. 1 on November 10, 1976 also for remitting the due amount. On December 3, 1976, Appellant No. 1 inf....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iod subsequent to the period of one month from the date on which the goods were taken in their custody that is for the period subsequent to the 30th August, 1974? Whether the plaintiffs abandoned or waived or forfeited their7. claim in respect of their dues and are estopped from making a claim in respect thereof against the defendants and/or Laxmi Engineering Co., as alleged in Para 8 of the written statement? Whether the defendants are bound and liable to pay to the8. plaintiffs a sum of Rs. 1,58,545.10 as per exhibit `B' to the plaint or any part thereof either with interest at the rate of 12% per annum or at any other rate? To what reliefs are the plaintiffs entitled?"9. 3.While the Port Trust led no evidence, the appellants examined Shri Badri Prasad Chaudhary, constituted Attorney of appellant No. 2. The parties also produced various documents in support of their respective cases. On a consideration of the evidence on the record, the learned Single Judge concluded that the suit filed by the Port Trust was not barred by limitation. However, on merits, the learned Single Judge held that since the appellants were not the importers and/or owners of the goods covered by....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ciate the rival contentions raised at the Bar, it is first necessary to notice certain admitted positions. 9.A perusal of the Bill of Lading, Ext. `B' reveals that Atlantic Metal Company Limited were the shippers. Against the column of "consignee" it is stated "order of the Indian Overseas Bank" and the party to be notified is shown as appellant No. 1. It is also admitted that the Indian Overseas Bank had made an endorsement in favour of appellant No. 1 which directed that the consignment in question should be delivered to appellant No. 1. After the endorsement was made by Indian Overseas Bank in favour of appellant No. 1, M/s. C.C. Shah & Sons, clearing agents, were appointed by appellant No. 1 to obtain Customs' clearance in respect of the consignment. It is also admitted that notice regarding confiscation and option of redemption on payment of penalty was issued by the Customs Authority to appellant No. 1. That the appellants were acting as agents for the consignee is not denied. It is also admitted that at no point of time did the appellants inform the Port Trust about or liability of the licence, Laxmi Engineering or that they were acting only on behalf of the said firm til....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....or, consignee, shipper or agent for the sale, custody, loading or unloading of such goods; and (ii) in relation to any vessel or any aircraft making use of any port, includes any part-owner, charterer, consignee, or mortgagee in possession thereof." 13.Bare reading of the definition of the expression "owner" under both the Acts, goes to show that the expression includes a "consignee" as also an "agent for sale or custody" of such goods. Thus, both under the Bombay Port Trust Act as well as under the Major Port Trusts Act, the expression "owner" includes an "agent for the custody of such goods." Therefore, irrespective of the question whether the expression "owner" could only imply the title holder in the goods as canvassed by Mr. Tripathi, from the definitions noticed above it follows that the expression "owner" would include within its ambit a "consignee" as well as the "agent for the custody of the goods" in question. We are in agreement with the view of the Division Bench of the High Court that on the endorsement made by the "consignee" on the Bill of Lading, the appellant No. 1 became the "consignee" and in view of the Letters of authority issued to it, appellant No. 1 was o....