Delivery of arrival manifest or import manifest or import report

Related judgements & precedents

These are some judgments that construed this section, and hold precedence value. They hold authority on how to read, interpret and use this section.

1. Chairman, Board of Trustees, C. P. T vs Arebee Star Maritime Agen. Pvt. L

   Supreme Court of India 05 Aug 2020 Binding Precedent For All Lower Courts In India And Persuasive For International Reportable (2020) 8 SCC 552 Or (2018) 4 SCC 592 For Reference Order

   Court's Decision & Legal Precedent

   The statutory scheme of the Major Port Trusts Act 1963 establishes a clear demarcation of liability for port charges at the critical juncture of Port Trust taking custody of goods and issuing receipt thereof. Prior to this point steamer agents may be liable for rates payable by vessel for services performed to the vessel including charges for landing and removal of goods to storage point. Subsequent to this point and for the entire period goods are stored in Port premises the only parties liable for demurrage and storage charges are the owner of the goods or other persons entitled to the goods whether beneficially entitled or not including importers consignees and consignors or their agents. The steamer agent is absolved of all liability for goods once Port Trust assumes custody as the master or owner of vessel stands relieved of responsibility for loss or damage to goods under section 42(7) of the Act. The passing of title to goods under general law or whether bill of lading is endorsed or delivery order issued are matters wholly irrelevant to determining post-custody liability as Port Trust takes charge from ship-owner becoming bailee to ship-owner as bailor not to consignee. Containers are merely receptacles in which goods are imported and must be distinguished from the goods themselves. Containers do not become part of the mass of goods within India for import duty purposes and must be returned to their owners once destuffing occurs. Accordingly containers themselves are not subject to demurrage or storage charges once destuffed. While sections 61 and 62 of the Act confer discretion on Port Trust to sell goods marked by word 'may' not mandatory word 'shall' the Port Trust as State under Article 12 Constitution is subject to Article 14 equality constraint and must exercise this discretion reasonably including implicit constitutional duty to sell goods within reasonable time ordinarily not exceeding four months from date of landing unless strong reasons exist justifying continued detention which must be capable of judicial review.

   On this section: Import manifest delivery requirements. Establishes that manifest contains consignee information indicating whom goods belong to.

   Read the full order on eCourts India

2. Board of Trustees Cochin Port. Trust vs Marine Container Ser. (south)p. L

   Supreme Court of India 05 Aug 2020 Binding (Supreme Court) Reportable

   Court's Decision & Legal Precedent

   After Port Trust takes custody of imported goods and issues receipt therefor, only the importer, owner, consignee or their authorized agents are liable to pay storage charges and demurrage levied by the Port Trust. The steamer agent (shipping agent) and shipowner are absolved of all liability for storage charges post-custody, even if bill of lading has not been endorsed by the steamer agent or delivery order issued. The passing of title to goods is irrelevant in determining liability to pay storage charges. Containers that require destuffing are not 'goods' for purposes of imposing demurrage; they are receptacles and must be returned to their owners (steamer agents/shipping lines) within a reasonable period. Port Trust is constitutionally bound to exercise its discretion to sell uncleared goods within a reasonable period, ordinarily not exceeding four months from date of assuming custody, and must destuff containers and return them when consignee/owner does not clear goods.

   On this section: Manifests indicate consignees and owners of goods, relevant to determining who must clear goods

   Read the full order on eCourts India

3. Chairman, Cochin Port Trust vs Maersk India Pvt. LTD

   Supreme Court of India 05 Aug 2020 Binding (Supreme Court) Reportable (2020) 8 SCC 1

   Court's Decision & Legal Precedent

   The statutory scheme of the Major Port Trusts Act 1963 establishes a two-stage liability framework: (1) STAGE ONE (PRE-LANDING TO RECEIPT): Until the Port Trust takes charge of goods and issues a receipt therefor, services rendered are for the vessel and steamer agents may be liable for landing and ancillary charges under the statutory bailment that comes into existence between vessel (bailor) and Port (bailee). (2) STAGE TWO (POST-RECEIPT/POST-LANDING): Once the Port Trust takes charge and receipt is issued, the vessel and steamer agents are absolved of all liability for the goods per section 42(7) of the Act. From this point forward, demurrage and storage charges are the liability of the importer, owner, consignee or their agents (i.e., persons beneficially entitled to the goods), not the steamer agent or vessel. (3) TITLE IRRELEVANCE: The point of time at which title to goods passes to the consignee is immaterial to determining liability for post-landing storage charges. Liability follows statutory entitlement and beneficial ownership per the MPT Act scheme, not technical title transfer. (4) CONTAINERS: A container which is a receptacle for transport and must be returned is not goods for purposes of storage charge liability. The Port Trust must destuff containers entrusted to it and return empty containers within a feasible period. (5) PORT DISCRETION: The Port Trust's power under sections 61-62 to sell goods is discretionary (may, not shall) but must be exercised reasonably with outer limit ordinarily of four months from landing date per Article 14 constraints, after which Port must justify continued detention.

   On this section: Vessel must deliver import manifest showing consignee details; establishes identity of persons entitled to goods

   Read the full order on eCourts India

4. Commr. of Customs vs Sayed Ali

   Supreme Court of India 18 Feb 2011 Binding (SC) Reportable

   Court's Decision & Legal Precedent

   A proper officer under Section 2(34) of the Customs Act, 1962, is only such a customs officer who has been assigned the specific functions of assessment and reassessment of duty by the Board or Commissioner of Customs. Mere appointment as an officer of Customs with territorial jurisdiction over a port is insufficient to confer proper officer status. Accordingly, a show cause notice under Section 28 of the Act for reassessment of goods cleared for home consumption can only be issued by the officer assigned assessment functions in the jurisdictional area where the bill of entry was filed and the goods were cleared, not by any other officer even if he has territorial jurisdiction over that area. In the present case, since the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), Mumbai, was never assigned the specific function of assessment or reassessment of goods entered for home consumption under Section 28, he was not competent to issue the show cause notice, notwithstanding his territorial jurisdiction.

   On this section: Filing of Import General Manifest (IGM) with proper officer (Imports); demonstrates the functional separation between Import and Preventive officers in the clearance process.

   Read the full order on eCourts India

5. Chairman Cochin Port Trust vs Cma Cgm Agencies India Pvt. LTD

   Supreme Court of India 05 Aug 2020 Binding (Supreme Court of India) - Landmark Decision Reportable (2018) 4 SCC 592 [Reference Order dated 07-03-2018]; (2020) 10 SCC 1 [Main Judgment dated 05-08-2020]

   Court's Decision & Legal Precedent

   After a Port Trust takes charge of imported goods from a vessel and issues a receipt therefor, the Port Trust becomes the bailee of those goods. Demurrage and storage charges accruing thereafter for goods stored in the Port's premises are payable by the importer, owner, consignee or other person beneficially entitled to the goods, and NOT by the steamer agent or ship-owner. However, charges for services rendered at the time of landing of goods or their removal from the vessel to the Port's storage premises (such as unloading charges and labour dues) may be charged against the steamer agent as services rendered to the vessel. The time at which title in goods passes to the consignee is irrelevant in determining such liability. The Port Trust must act reasonably in exercising its discretion to sell goods under Sections 61-62 of the MPT Act and must attempt to sell goods within reasonable time from when it assumes custody, with four months from landing being the outer limit, failing which it must provide written explanation justifiable by the courts. Containers are receptacles for goods, not imported goods themselves, and must be destuffed and returned to the steamer agent or container owner within a short feasible period.

   On this section: Person-in-charge must deliver import manifest to customs officer; manifest contains consignee and owner information; establishes customs authority role in tracking goods and determining beneficial owner

   Read the full order on eCourts India

6. Chairman, Cochin Port Trust vs Hanjin Shipping India Pvt. LTD

   Supreme Court of India 05 Aug 2020 Binding - Supreme Court Three-Judge Bench Reportable (2018) 4 SCC 592 (for the Division Bench Reference Order)

   Court's Decision & Legal Precedent

   Upon the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963: (1) The point of time at which title to goods passes to the consignee is not relevant to determine the liability of the consignee or steamer agent in respect of charges to be paid to the Port Trust. (2) Once the Port Trust takes charge of goods and issues receipt therefor, the steamer agent may be held liable for Port Trust dues in connection with services rendered qua unloading of goods, but thereafter, the importer, owner, consignee or their agent is liable to pay demurrage charges for storage of goods. (3) The Port Trust, as 'State' under Article 12 of the Constitution, is bound by Article 14 constraints and must ordinarily sell goods within four months from the date of landing, unless reasonably justified otherwise. (4) Containers are receptacles for imported goods, not imported goods themselves; containers must be returned to steamer agents, and carrying goods in containers makes no difference to the principle that only the owner of goods or person entitled to goods is liable to pay demurrage. (5) The Port Trust is under a duty to destuff every container entrusted to it and return destuffed containers to appropriate persons within as short a period as is feasible where the owner/person entitled to goods does not come forward to take delivery. (6) The statutory scheme of the MPT Act allocates liability for storage charges post-custody exclusively to the owner/beneficial owner of goods, whether consignor, consignee, importer, or their agents, and never to the steamer agent post-custody.

   On this section: Person-in-charge must deliver import manifest to proper officer indicating goods nature and consignee; administrative control over imported goods

   Read the full order on eCourts India

7. Aban Offshore LTD vs Commnr. of Customs (import)

   Supreme Court of India 02 Feb 2017 Binding (Supreme Court) Reportable

   Court's Decision & Legal Precedent

   A foreign-going vessel which enters Indian territorial waters temporarily for the purpose of undergoing repairs and which is subsequently removed from Indian territorial waters does not constitute goods imported into India for home consumption merely by reason of such entry and repair. The completion of the act of importation requires not only that the goods enter Indian territorial waters, but also that they satisfy the requirement of being intended for primary use in India (home consumption). Mere repair of a vessel does not constitute putting the vessel to use or utility in India, and therefore does not satisfy the home consumption requirement. Consequently, customs duty is not chargeable on a foreign-going vessel that enters Indian territorial waters solely for repair purposes, despite such entry technically constituting the commencement of importation. However, foreign-going vessels remain subject to the procedural and regulatory compliance requirements of the Customs Act upon entering Indian territorial waters, and violation of these procedural provisions (such as failure to file appropriate documents or deliver import manifests) remains actionable even absent the completion of import.

   On this section: Requires delivery of import manifest within 24 hours of arrival. Court noted that rig was not declared in Import General Manifest as required under Section 46.

   Read the full order on eCourts India

The holding above is the ratio decidendi as extracted from the judgment by eCourts India, reproduced unaltered — it is a rendering of the court's reasoning, not a substitute for its words. Read the order itself before relying on it.