TRUSTEES OF PORT OF MADRASversusM/S. NAGAVEDU LUNGI AND COMPANY AND ORS.

                       TRUSTEES OF PORT OF MADRAS                                     A
                                           v.
            M/S. NAGAVEDU LUNGI AND COMPANY AND ORS.

                                   APRIL 21, 1995
                                                                                      B
                  [KULDIP SINGH, N.VENKATACHALA AND
                          S. SAGHIR AHMAD, JJ.)


            Customs Act, 1962

            Sea Port-CUStom Area-Textile goods-illegal detention of by Cus-           C
      toms Officer--£xporter Consignor-Held liable _to pay demurrage and othe1
      incidental ch"'l?es.

             The appellant trustees of the Port of Madras - filed a suit against
      the respondent for recovery of demurrage charges and other incidental           D
.~i   charges in respect of certain textile goods illegally detained in the Customs
      area of the Port of Madras by the Collector of Customs. The City Civil
      Court dismissed the suit on the ground that the consignor exporter of the
      goods could not be held liable to pay the charges when the goods had been
      illegally detained by Collector of Customs in exercise of his power under
      the Customs Act. The High Court affirmed the judgment alld decree of            E
      dismissal passed by the City Civil Court. Against the decision of the High
      Court, an appeal was preferred before this Court.

           Allowing the appeal and setting aside the judgment and decree under
      appeal, this Court                                                              F

             HELD: The ruling of this Court in International Airports Authority of
      lridia v. M/s. Grand Slam !11temational and Ors. (1995) 1 Scale 859 as
      regards liability for demurrage charges and other incidental charges by
      importer- consignee of goods illegally detained in the cu•toms .area of the
      Airport by the Customs Authorities applies equally to the liability to pay      G
      demurrage charges or incidental charges by the exporter-consignor of
      goods illegally detained in the customs area of the sea-port by the Customs
      Authorities under the Customs Act, for such goods illegally detained by
      the Customs Authorities, the fact that they belonged to either the importer-
      consignee or exporter-consignor does not make any difference. (671-D]           H
                                          669
    670                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  (1995] 3 S.C.R.

A          International AitpoTts Authority of India v. M/s. Grand Slam Interna-
    tional & Ors., (1995) 1 Scale 859, relied on.

            CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1519 of
    1982.

B        From the Judgment and Order dated 1. 7. 77 of the Madras High
    Court in A.No. 494 of 1973.                                                       '   '


           G. Viswantha Iyer, S. Venkatswaran, Dr. Shankar Ghosh, S. Balak-
    rishnan, S. Prasad, Ms. Indu Malhotra, Ms. Ayasha Khatri, C.V.S. Rao,
C   (NP), Rahul Dave, Arnn Kathpalia, R.A. Peromal, Amit Thoppar, Manoj
    Pillai for D.N. Gupta, H.K. Dutt (NP), Ranjan Mukherjee, AD. Sikri, E.R.
    Kumar, Ms. Shefali Faz! for P.H. Parekh, Mis. JBD & Co. (NP) and S.R.
    Setia for the appearing parties.

            The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
D                                                                                    \.
          VENKATACHALA, J. The appellant was tbe plaintiff in suit · O.S.
    No. 3980/69 in City Civil Court at Madras, while respondents-1 to 5 were
    defendants-I to 5 therein. That suit had been instituted by the plaintiff-the
    trustees of Port of Madras against the defendants for recovery of demur·
E   rage charges and other incidental charges in respect of certain textile goods
    in tbeir custody in tbe customs area of the Port of Madras. Defendant-I
    was tbe consignor-exporter of those goods. Defendant-2 was tbe shipping
    agent who had to put those goods on board tbe ship for their export.
    Defendant-5 is the alleged successor of defendant-2 firm. Defendant-4 is         L
    the Collector of Customs who, on behalf of the Union of India, defendant-3
F   was responsible for illegal detention of the goods in tbe customs area of
    the Port of Madras giving rise to the claim for demurrage charges and
    other incidental charges by the plaintiff.

         The City Civil Court dismissed tbe suit against all the defendants as
  in its view consignor • exporter of those goods could not be held liable for
G demurrage charges and incidental charges payable for those goods when             \_
  they had been illegally detained in; the customs area of the Port of Madras         -
  by respondent· 4, purporting to exercise his powers under Customs Act.
  The plaintiff questioned the correctness uf that judgment and decree of
  the City Civil Court, dismissing its suit against all the defendants, by
H presenting an appeal therefrom before the High Court of Madras in
          1RUSIBES OF PORT OF MADRAS". NAGAVEDU LUNGIANDCO. (VENKATACHALA, J.)671


           Appeal No. 494n3. But, that appeal was also dismissed.                        A
     j_
                 It is the judgment and decree of dismissal of that appeal by which
           the judgment and decree of dismissal of the suit by the City Civil Court is
           affirmed, which is appealed against in this Court in the present appeal of
           the plaintiff.
                                                                                         B
                  We have heard learned Counsel for the parties in the appeal. A three
            Judge Bench of this Court in International Airports Authority of India v. Mis.
     j
            Grand Slam International & Ors., [1995] 1 SCALE 859, has ruled that the
          · importer- consignee of goods cannot avoid his liability to pay deil)urrage
            charges and other incidental charges in respect of its goods illegally·
            detained in the customs area of the Airport by the Customs Authorities C
            under the Customs Act. The said ruling of this Court as regards liability
            for demurrage charges and other incidental charges by importer-consignee
            of goods illegally detained in the customs area of the Airport by the
            Customs Authorities applies to the liability to pay demurrage charges or
            incidental charges by the exporter-consignor of goods illegally detained in D
            the customs area of the sea-port by the Customs Authorities under the
 -1         Customs Act, for such goods illegally detained by the Customs Authorities,
            the fact that they belonged to either the importer-consignee or exporter-
            consignor does not make any difference.

                In the said view of the matter, the judgments and decrees under          E
           appeal are liable to be set aside and the suit of the plaintiff calls to be
           decreed against exporter-consignor, defendant-1.

                In the result, we allow. this appeal, set aside the judgments and
           decrees of the courts below and decree the suit O.S. 3980/69 against
           defendant-1 as prayed for, with costs.                                        F

           T.N.A.                                                    Appeal allowed.




-' i
 /