Whether the Notification dated 11.10.2000 approving the respondent-Port Trust as the custodian of the notified customs area under Section 45(1) of the Customs Act is valid?

Yes. On a juxtaposition of sub-sections (1), (2) and (3) of Section 45 of the Customs Act with the provisions of the Major Port Trusts Act, the Commissioner of Customs (Import) was fully justified in issuing the Notification dated 11.10.2000 approving the Mumbai Port Trust as the custodian under Section 45(1). Since the Notification was issued precisely for the purpose of collection of customs duty in respect of pilfered goods as stipulated under sub-section (3), it cannot be found fault with merely because the custody of the goods is otherwise governed by the Major Port Trusts Act. The High Court was not justified in holding that the Commissioner lacked the jurisdiction to issue it.

Customs Act, 1962 — s.13 — s.45 — Major Port Trusts Act, 1963 — s.42 — s.43 — Indian Contract Act, 1872 — s.148 — Saving clause and non obstante clause — Custodian of imported goods — Duty on pilfered goods — Customs Act, 1962 — s.45(1) — Saving clause — Power to approve a custodian — Held: Under the saving clause in sub-section (1) of Section 45 the Commissioner has no powers to approve a custodian where some other law itself fastens customs duty for pilfered goods on a person; only when no such liability exists can he approve. (¶6) Customs Act, 1962 — s.45(3) — Major Port Trusts Act, 1963 — s.43 — Source, nature and object of the two liabilities — Held further: The liability of the Board under Section 43 is a bailee's civil liability towards the owner of the goods and is conditional; Section 45(3) fastens an independent and absolute statutory liability to pay customs duty to the revenue. (¶6) Customs Act, 1962 — s.13 — s.23 — Pilferage distinct from loss of goods — Held further: Pilferage of goods in a customs area is not loss of goods simpliciter, and as pilferage is not dealt with under the Major Port Trusts Act, the saving clause under sub-section (1) of Section 45 does not apply. (¶6) Customs Act, 1962 — s.45(1) — s.45(3) — Notification dated 11.10.2000 — Valid — Held further: A Notification approving the Port Trust as custodian cannot be found fault with merely because the custody of the goods is otherwise governed by the Major Port Trusts Act. Appeal disposed of. (¶6, 7)

One judgment a day. That's the whole habit.

Read the full text of UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS v. THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE PORT OF BOMBAY — and get the Supreme Court's output as a five-minute daily read, with plain-language headnotes and the questions each judgment settles.

Free forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India