Page 164 - ELT_1st September 2020_Vol 373_Part 5

602 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 373

ent No. 2. Role of mischief at the hands of respondent No. 2 as tried
to be attempted and projected in this Court cannot be ruled out, but
again it would be a matter of debate and interpretation of any claim
or counter claim if an appropriate arbitration proceedings or other
proceedings are initiated.
(V) So long there is no demand by the Customs Department against the
petitioner giving cause to invoke to claim the relief as aforemen-
tioned, but this Court cannot remain unmindful of the fact that a
vigilant title holder of the goods cannot be permitted to remain as a
mute spectator in espousing the grievance.
In the judgment cited (supra) referring to the exporter/consignor to be a title
holder of the goods coupled with the information that the judgments cited supra
have been doubted and referred to a Larger Bench by a reference in The Chair-
man, Board of Trustees, Cocin Port Trust v. Arebees Star Maritime Agencies Pvt. Ltd.
and Ors. [2018 (4) SCC 592 = 2018 (360) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.)], the relevant portion of
which read thus :
“14. Analysing the above judgments, the following position emerges :
(i) 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 pay-
ment of its charges;
(ii) The Constitution Bench judgment in Rowther-I holds that
when Port Trust takes charge of the goods from the ship-
owner, the ship-owner 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 deci-
sion 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;
(iii) While the decision in Sriyanesh Knitters was based on the in-
terpretation of the term “owner”. Under Section 2(o) of the
MPT Act, the judgment in Forbes-II and Rasiklal do not find the
question of interpretation of the term “owner” to be relevant;
(iv) While Forbes-II relies upon the Constitution Bench decision in
Rowther-I to come to its conclusions, Rasiklal does not find
Rowther-I to be an authority for the proposition that until the
title in goods is passed to the consignee, the liability to pay
various charges payable to a Port Trust, for its services in re-
spect of goods, falls exclusively on the steamer agent;
(v) In Rowther-II, it was held that once the goods are handed over
to the Port Trust by the steamer and the steamer agents have
duly endorsed the bill of lading or issued the delivery order,
their obligation to deliver the goods personally to the owner
or the endorsee comes to an end. The decision in Rasiklal,
which has been delivered after the reference of Forbes-I was
disposed of, takes a contrary view that in cases where the con-
signee does not come to take delivery of goods, the position of
law laid down by Rowther-II would result in a situation that
the Port Trust would incur expenses without any legal right to

EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st September 2020  164