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.

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.