Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

"7. Before examining the correctness of the rival submissions, one thing is crystal clear that the relationship between the importer and the carrier of goods in whose favour the Bill of lading has been consigned and who has stored the goods in his custody, the relationship is governed by the contract between the parties. Section 170 of the Indian Contract Act engraft the principle of Bailees lien, namely if somebody has received the articles on being delivered to him and is required to store the same until cleared for which he might have borne the expenses, he has a right to detain it until his dues are paid. But it is not necessary in the case in hand to examine the common law principle and the bailees lien inasmuch as the very terms of the contract and the provisions of the Bills of Lading,, unequivocally conferred power on the appellant to retain the goods, until the dues are paid. Such rights accruing in favour of the appellant cannot be nullified by issuance of a certificate of detention by the customs authorities unless for such issuance of detention certificate any provisions of the Customs Act authorises. We had not been shown any provisions of the Customs Act, which would enable the customs authorities to compel the carrier, not to charge demurrage charges, the moment a detention certificate is issued. It may be undoubtedly true that the customs authorities might have bona fide initiated the proceedings for confiscation of the goods which however, ultimately turned out to be C/LPA/665/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 24/02/2023 unsuccessful and the Court held the same to be illegal. But that by itself, would not clothe the customs authorities with the power to direct the carrier who continues to retain a lien over the imported goods, so long as his dues are not paid, not to charge any demurrage charges nor the so- called issuance of detention certificate would also prohibit the carrier from raising any demand towards demurrage charges, for the occupation of the imported goods of the space, which the proprietor of the space is entitled to charge from the importer. The importer also will not be entitled to remove his goods from the premises unless customs clearance is given.

In an appeal preferred by the Board, by an interim order the appellant was permitted to clear the goods on payment of demurrage and on furnishing a bank guarantee. The appellant C/LPA/665/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 24/02/2023 did not pay the charges nor did it furnish the bank guarantee. On an application filed by the Board for permission to sell the goods, the Court held that the Board could decide its course of action. The appellate court held the Board to be entitled to recover charges for the entire period the goods had remained with it. Before the Apex Court, the appellant contended that the right of lien under Section 59 of the Major Port Trusts Act is similar to the lien exercised by a bailee under Section 171 of the Indian Contract Act. Having once exercised the lien the bailee could not charge rent for storage of goods. It further contended that the Board should have exercised the power of sale under Section 62 of the Major Port Trusts Act. Having not so done, it could not be permitted to continue to levy demurrage. In such circumstances, the Court held thus:

"Statutorily the respondent Board is entitled to claim payment of all demurrage charges before the goods were cleared. The appellant never offered to pay the demurrage charges. It sought to misuse the order of the court and take the goods out of the custody of the respondent without payment of the respondent's charges. The respondent was fully justified in refusing to allow C/LPA/665/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 24/02/2023 such clearance. The appellate court was right in concluding that the respondent was entitled to recover all charges till the date the goods remained with it." "The proposition that the bailee, who exercises a lien, is not entitled to charge rent for storage of goods can never apply to a case where the lien is exercised for non-

18. In our view the proposition that the bailee, who exercises a lien, is not entitled to charge rent for storage of goods can never apply to a case where the lien is exercised for non-payment of rent or storage charges. If such a proposition were to be accepted it would lead to catastrophic results. It is well known that in most cities, particularly port cities like Calcutta and Mumbai, storage space is at a premium. If such a proposition were accepted then all that a person need to do is to make a demand for removal of the goods without offering to pay the storage charges. If the bailee were to refuse to allow clearance and exercise his right of lien, as he is bound to do, the bailor's purpose would be served.