Back
MSC Agency Cannot Escape ₹90 Lakh Customs Despite :
A Division Bench of the has restored a ₹90.15 lakh customs imposed on steamer agent , holding that contractual stipulations in cannot override the of the .
In a strongly worded judgment delivered on , Justices G. Jayachandran and N. Mala set aside the 's order that had absolved the shipping agent of for a massive shortfall in imported steel scrap. The Bench criticised the Tribunal for dealing with the matter in a "very cavalier fashion."
When 150 Containers of 'Shredded Steel Scrap' Became Broken Roof Tiles
The dispute traces back to , when the received information from about short landings in steel scrap import consignments. An inspection of 150 twenty-foot containers shipped by MSC Agency — acting as steamer agent for — revealed a startling discrepancy.
The and declared 3,429.809 metric tonnes of shredded steel scrap and 168.24 metric tonnes of heavy melting steel scrap . On physical examination, however, the containers largely contained broken roof tiles. Across all 150 containers, the actual weight of the declared goods unloaded was, on average, a mere 12.5% of the declared weight.
A Tale of Two Orders: Commissioner's Findings vs. Tribunal's Reversal
On , the Commissioner of Customs ordered of the goods and imposed a of ₹90,15,924 on MSC Agency under . The Commissioner found the agent had failed to make a true declaration in the IGM and could not satisfactorily account for the shortage of 3,381.129 metric tonnes of shredded steel scrap and 162.71 metric tonnes of heavy melting steel scrap.
The Commissioner also rejected the agent's defence that clauses in the
, stating particulars were
"furnished by the shipper and unchecked by the carrier,"
absolved it of responsibility. Such stipulations, he reasoned, are mere contracts between shipper and carrier and cannot override
.
MSC Agency appealed to , which in set aside the . The Tribunal accepted the argument that the containers arrived with seals intact and concluded that this was a case of "" rather than "," placing reliance on the 's decision in .
The Legal Showdown: Shaw Wallace vs. British Airways
Before the High Court, senior standing counsel for the Revenue argued that the 's judgment in British Airways PLC v. Union of India (2002 [2] SCC 95) had given "" to the question of . Under that ruling, under Section 116 extends not only to the of a conveyance but also to his agent, or any person representing him and accepted as such by customs authorities for dealing with cargo.
MSC Agency countered that it could not be construed as a "" under . It emphasised that the seals on all containers were intact, and that the misdeclaration had occurred before the goods were placed on board. The agent also invoked the "non-checked by carrier" stipulations in the .
Why '' Did Not Save the Steamer Agent
Rejecting these contentions, the High Court found that MSC Agency's own actions brought it squarely within the ambit of . The company had lodged the IGM, subscribed to a declaration as to the truth of its contents under , and was accepted by customs officers as the Master's agent for dealing with cargo.
Drawing on the Division Bench's reasoning in
Caravel Logistics Private Limited v. General Secretary [RA]
(2016), the Court observed:
"Thus, whoever lodges the import manifest with the proper officer of the Customs, acts as such, as an agent of the Master of the vessel."
The Bench further underscored the sheer scale of the discrepancy, noting that such a shortfall
"could not have gone unnoticed had the shipping line been diligent."
The Court also dismissed the relevance of the
and the
clauses, holding that these contractual arrangements could not override the clear provisions of the
.
Key Observations
The Court made several pointed observations:
"We find that the Tribunal failed to note that admittedly, 150 containers were shipped through the same shipping line and in all cases, the actual weight of goods unloaded was 12.5% [on an average] of the declared weight of the goods as per the Import General Manifest [IGM] and the issued by the shipping line."
"The Tribunal, despite the aforesaid glaring facts, in a very cryptic manner, reversed the order of the Commissioner of Customs."
"As contended by the appellant, such a huge difference in weight could not have gone unnoticed had the shipping line been diligent."
The Verdict and Its Implications
The High Court answered all questions of law in favour of the Revenue, allowed the appeal, and restored the Commissioner's order-in-original dated . MSC Agency India was directed to comply with the order within twelve weeks .
The judgment carries significant implications for shipping agents and carriers: merely pointing to or disclaimers in will no longer suffice. Steamer agents who lodge the IGM and are accepted as the Master's representatives bear statutory responsibility under Section 116 to account for declared cargo. The decision reaffirms the binding authority of British Airways over the earlier ruling in Shaw Wallace , signalling that tribunals must adhere to the 's harmonised interpretation of Sections 30, 116, and 148 of the .
