Page 165 - ELT_1st September 2020_Vol 373_Part 5

2020 ] VINA ONE STEEL MANUFACTURING CORPORATION v. COMMR. OF CUS., COCHIN 603

recover such amount from the consignor, with whom there
was no contractual obligation; and
(vi) The Bench of two Judges in Rasiklal opined that it agrees with
the conclusions recorded in Rowther-II and Forbes-II that a Port
Trust could recover the rates due, either from the steamer
agent or the consignee. However, the holding in Rowther-II
finds only the consignee to be liable.
15. Taking note of the above inconsistencies in the judgments which have
been delivered after the pronouncement by the Constitution Bench in
Rowther-I, we are inclined to the view that the following issues need to be
resolved by a Larger Bench :
(a) Whether in the interpretation of the provision of Section 2(o)
of the MPT Act, the question of title of goods, and the point of
time at which title passes to the consignee is relevant to de-
termine the liability of the consignee or steamer agent in re-
spect of charges to be paid to the Port Trust;
(b) Whether a consignor or a steamer agent is absolved of the re-
sponsibility to pay charges due to a Port Trust, for its services
in respect of goods which are not cleared by the consignee,
once the Bill of lading is endorsed or the delivery order is is-
sued;
(c) Whether a steamer agent can be made liable for payment of
storage charges/demurrage, etc. in respect of goods which are
not cleared by the consignee, where the steamer agent has not
issued a delivery order; if so, to what extent;
(d) What are the principles which determine whether a Port Trust
is entitled to recover its dues, from the steamer agent or the
consignee; and
(e) While the Port Trust does have certain statutory obligations
with regard to the goods entrusted to it, whether there is any
obligation, either statutory or contractual, that obliges the Port
Trust to de-stuff every container that is entrusted to it and re-
turn the empty containers to the shipping agent.
The Larger Bench may deal with any additional issues relevant to the con-
text, as it deems necessary.
16. We request the Registry to place the papers before the Hon’ble Chief
Justice of India for such administrative directions as may be considered ap-
propriate.”
9. Thus it is yet to be decided whether the definition of the importer
has to be strictly interpreted in the manner as attempted to be put across at this
stage when the matter has been referred to a Larger Bench. This Court cannot
change the terms and conditions of the contract and supplement the same as has
been attempted to be done.
10. For the reason aforementioned this writ petition is dismissed.

_______

EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st September 2020  165