1. Dispute over liability for ground rent on uncleared containers at a port under the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963. (Para 1 , 3 , 4 )
2020 Supreme(SC) 473
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
R. F. NARIMAN, NAVIN SINHA, INDIRA BANERJEE, JJ.
The Chairman, Board of Trustees, Cochin Port Trust – Appellant
Versus
M/s Arebee Star Maritime Agencies Pvt. Ltd. and others – Respondent
Civil Appeal Nos. 2525, 2526, 2527, 2528, 2529, 2530, 2531, 2532, 2533, 2534 and 2535 of 2018
Decided On : 05-08-2020
Important Points
(1) Expression “may” in Sections 61 and 62 of MPT Act cannot be read as “shall”, subject to the caveat that as “State” under Article 12 of Constitution, a Port Trust must act reasonably and attempt to sell goods within a reasonable period from the date on which it has assumed custody of them.
(2) Point of time at which title to goods passes to consignee is not relevant to determine liability of consignee or steamer agent in respect of charges to be paid to Port Trust.
Subject
Commercial Law - Maritime Law
Act Referred
CENTRAL EXCISE AND SALT ACT: S.3
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA: Art.12
CONTRACT ACT: S.151, S.152, S.161, S.171
CUSTOMS ACT: S.49, S.29, S.30, S.33, S.45, S.48, S.150, S.2(23), S.18, S.25(1)
CUSTOMS TARIFF ACT: S.3(7)
CUSTOMS VALUATION RULES: R.10(1)(a), R.10(1)(b), R.10(1)(a)(i), R.10(1)(a)(ii), R.10(1)(a)(iii)
MAJOR PORT TRUSTS ACT: S.47(a), S.2(6), S.61, S.62, S.48(1)(d), S.49(1)(c), S.45(5), S.39(3), S.59
SEA CUSTOMS ACT: S.20
Headnote
(A) Major Port Trusts Act, 1963 – Sections 61, 62 and 63(2) – Customs Act, 1962 – Sections 48 – Liability to pay ground rent on containers unloaded at Port – Import of goods can only be said to be complete after they cross into territorial waters of India and become part of mass of goods within India – Until stage of landing and removal to a place of storage, steamer’s agent or vessel itself may be made liable for rates payable by vessel for services performed to vessel – Post landing and removal to a place of storage, detention charges for goods that are stored, and demurrage payable thereon from this point on, i.e. when Port Trust takes charge of goods from vessel, or from any other person who can be said to be owner as defined under section 2(o), it is only owner of goods or other persons entitled to goods (who may be beneficially entitled as well) that Port Trust has to look to for payment of storage or demurrage charges – Principle of noscitur a sociis cannot be applied to this definition. (Paras 24, 25 and 29)
(B) Major Port Trusts Act, 1963 – Sections 61, 62 and 63(2) – Customs Act, 1962 – Sections 48 – Liability to pay ground rent on containers unloaded at Port – Expression “importer” that occurs in section 63(2) of MPT Act would certainly include a beneficial owner of goods – Since charges for storage or demurrage are after goods are removed and placed in custody of Board, steamer agent cannot be made to pay the same, as it would impose a too onerous and unexpected responsibility on the steamer which is only a carrier, and not owner of goods – Point of time at which title to goods passes to consignee is not relevant to determine liability of consignee or steamer agent in respect of charges to be paid to Port Trust – Bill of lading being endorsed by steamer agent is different from bill of lading being endorsed by owner of goods – In first case, endorsement leads to delivery; in second case, endorsement leads to passing of title – Both stages are irrelevant in determining who is to pay storage charges – Upto the point that Port Trust takes charge of goods and gives receipt therefor, steamer agent may be held liable for Port Trust dues in connection with services rendered qua unloading of goods, but that thereafter, importer, owner, consignee or their agent is liable to pay demurrage charges for storage of goods. (Paras 59 and 82)
(C) Major Port Trusts Act, 1963 – Sections 61, 62 and 63(2) – Customs Act, 1962 – Sections 48 – Liability to pay ground rent on containers unloaded at Port – A container which has to be returned is only a receptacle by which goods that are imported into India are transported – Considering that container may belong either to consignor, shipping agent, ship-owner, or to some person who has leased out the same, it would be duty of Port Trust to destuff every container that is entrusted to it, and return destuffed containers to any such person within as short a period as is feasible in cases where owner/person entitled to goods does not come forward to take delivery of goods and destuff such containers – What should be this period is to be determined on facts of each case, given activities of port, number of vessels which berth at it, together with volume of goods that are imported – Expression “may” in Sections 61 and 62 of MPT Act cannot be read as “shall”, subject to the caveat that as “State” under Article 12 of Constitution, a Port Trust must act reasonably and attempt to sell goods within a reasonable period from the date on which it has assumed custody of them. (Paras 82 and 84)
Facts of the case:
Present batch of appeals arises out of a reference order made by a Division Bench of this Court dated 07.03.2018 reported as (2018) 4 SCC 592. Question before the High Court was whether the liability to pay “ground rent” on containers unloaded at Cochin Port, but not cleared by the consignees/importers and refused to be destuffed by the Port, on the ground of inadequate storage space, can be imposed on the owners of the vessel/steamer agents beyond the period of 75 days, fixed by the Tariff Authority of Major Ports [TAMP], a statutory body constituted under Section 47-A of the Major Port Trusts Act [MPT Act], 1963.
Findings of Court:
Steamer agents themselves did not dispute liability to pay ground rent upto 75 days before the High Court, and have admittedly paid the said charges long ago. As a matter of fact, the steamer agents paid ground rent even beyond the period of 75 days – High Court having ordered the Appellant Port Trust to recompute the liability of the steamer agents, and return the balance to the parties concerned within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the impugned judgment. To order a refund of ground rent paid for 75 days to the steamer agent, and direct the Board to then recover the same from the importer, consignor and/or the owner of the goods at this late stage of the proceedings would not be in the interest of justice.
Result : Reference answered.
Legal Category Hierarchy
For the Appellant :Mr. Ritin Rai Sr. Advocate, Ms. Kritika Bhardwaj Advocate, Mr. V. K. Monga Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. Prashant S. Pratap, Sr. Adv. Ms. S. Priya, Mr. Vikas Mehta, Ms. Anushree Menon, Mr. O. P. Gaggar, Mr. Aditya Gaggar, Mr. Prashant Pratap Sr., Mr. Siddhartha Dave, Sr. Adv. Mr. Jemtiben AO, Mr. Senthil Jagadeesan, Mr. M. T. George, Ms. Sunita Rani Singh, Mr. B. Krishna Prasad, Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, Mr. Rahul Narichania, Sr. Adv. Mr. Prathamesh Kamat, Mr. Ankur Kashyap, Mr. Shiv Iyer, Ms. Ankita Sen, Ms. Krithika Iyer, Mr. Osama Butt, Mr. Rohit Rajershi, Mr. M. P. Vinod, Mr. Anish Agarwal, Mr. Yogesh Adhia, Mr. Pratik Kothari, Ms. Vanshika Gupta Advocates.
Table of Contents
2. Port Trust contends steamer agents are liable as bailees; shipping agents argue liability rests with the importer or consignee as owners of the goods. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 )
3. The court distinguished between services rendered to vessels during landing and storage services, analyzing statutory bailment and the definition of owner under the MPT Act. (Para 14 , 16 , 17 , 21 , 22 , 24 , 39 , 47 , 53 , 54 , 59 , 62 , 66 , 71 , 73 )
4. Steamer agents are liable for dues until the Port Trust takes charge of goods; thereafter, storage charges are payable only by the importer, owner, or consignee. (Para 24 , 82 )
5. Appeals disposed of; High Court judgment set aside regarding the interpretation of may as shall in Sections 61 and 62 of the MPT Act. (Para 83 , 84 )
6. Who is liable for storage charges or demurrage after the Port Trust takes charge of landed goods?
Once the Port Trust takes charge of the goods and issues a receipt, the importer, owner, consignee, or their agent is liable for storage or demurrage charges, not the vessel or steamer agent. (Para 24 , 82 )
7. Does a steamer agent fall within the definition of owner under Section 2(o) of the MPT Act?
Yes, the inclusive definition of owner in Section 2(o)(i), which includes agents for the loading or unloading of goods, encompasses the vessel's agent. (Para 14 , 16 )
8. Does the endorsement of a bill of lading by a steamer agent transfer title to the goods?
No, endorsement by a steamer agent is for delivery purposes. Only endorsement by the consignor or owner of the goods transfers title to the endorsee under the Indian Bills of Lading Act, 1856. (Para 59 , 62 , 82 )
9. Is the Port Trust obliged to destuff containers and return them to the shipping agent?
Yes, the Port Trust must destuff containers and return them within a feasible short period if the owner of the goods fails to take delivery. (Para 82 )
10. Does the word may in Sections 61 and 62 of the MPT Act imply a mandatory obligation?
No, may denotes discretion. However, as a State under Article 12, the Port Trust must act reasonably under Article 14 and attempt to sell goods within a reasonable time. (Para 74 , 84 )
JUDGMENT :
R.F. NARIMAN, J.
1. This batch of appeals arises out of a reference order made by a Division Bench of this Court dated 07.03.2018 reported as (2018) 4 SCC 592. The learned Division Bench stated as to how these proceedings arose before it as follows:
"1. These proceedings have arisen from a judgment dated 27-9-2011 [Arebee Star Maritime Agencies (P) Ltd. v. Cochin Port Trust, Original Petition No. 21041 of 1999, decided on 27-9-2011 (Ker)] of a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court in a batch of writ appeals and original petitions, preferred by various shipping agents.
2. The question before the High Court was whether the liability to pay "ground rent" on containers unloaded at Cochin Port, but not cleared by the consignees/importers and refused to be destuffed by the Port, on the ground of inadequate storage space, can be imposed on the owners of the vessel/steamer agents beyond the period of 75 days, fixed by the Tariff Authority of Major Ports [TAMP], a statutory body constituted under Section 47-A of the Major Port Trusts Act [MPT Act], 1963.
3. The facts of the case are summarised in the following extract of the judgment of the High Court:
"The sequence of events that led to the stalemate refers to the incidents which happened in 1998 when there (sic) imports synthetic woollen rags (in containers) in the Cochin Port Trust premises. The said containers were destuffed to facilitate Customs examination and to return the empty containers to the steamer agents. The destuffed cargo occupied much larger space and was not promptly cleared by the consignees in view of the hurdles placed by the Customs stating that the cargo actually did not constitute old woollen rags as declared, but mostly were brand new clothes which could not have been cleared. The "modus operandi" of the consignees/importers attracted wide attention of all concerned and taking note of the probable extent of liability to be imposed by the Customs Department, and the liability to be satisfied to the Port and others concerned, the consignees did not turn up to clear the goods and they were lying idle in the Port premises for quite long."
The Port Trust charged "ground rent" from the steamer agents/owners of the containers."
2. After then setting out the relevant provisions of the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963 ["MPT Act"] and the relevant portions of five decisions of this Court, namely, Port of Madras vs. K.P.V. Sheik Mohamed Rowther & Co. 1963 Supp. (2) SCR 915 ["Rowther-I"]; Port of Madras vs. K.P.V. Sheik Mohd. Rowther & Co. P. Ltd. (1997) 10 SCC 285, ["Rowther-II"]; Port of Bombay vs. Sriyanesh Knitters (1999) 7 SCC 228; Forbes Forbes Campbell & Co. vs. Port of Bombay (2015) 1 SCC 228 ["Forbes-II"] and Rasiklal Kantilal & Co. vs. Port of Bombay (2017) 11 SCC 1, the Division Bench then stated:
"23. Analysing the above judgments, the following position emerges:
23.1. The decisions in Rowther-I, Rowther-II, Sriyanesh Knitters, Forbes-II and Rasiklal do not seem to follow a consistent line about whom the Port Trust has to fasten the liability for payment of its charges;
23.2. The Constitution Bench judgment in Rowther-I holds that when Port Trust takes charge of the goods from the shipowner, the shipowner is the bailor and the Port Trust is the bailee. While the Bench of two Judges in Sriyanesh Knitters holds that there comes into existence the relationship of bailor and bailee between the consignee and the Port Trust, the decision in Forbes-II disagrees with this view of Sriyanesh Knitters. Rasiklal opines that enquiry into such relationship is irrelevant in determining the right of a Port Trust to recover its dues;
23.3. While the decision in Sriyanesh Knitters was based on the interpretation of the term "owner" under Section 2(6) of the MPT Act, the judgments in Forbes-II and Rasiklal do not find the question of interpretation of the term "owner" to be relevant;
23.4. While Forbes-II relies upon the Constitution Bench decision in Rowther-I to come to its con