Case at a Glance
Customs authorities demanded duty from the Mumbai Port Trust on imported goods pilfered while in its custody between 1996 and 2000, and on 11 October 2000 formally approved the Port Trust as custodian under Section 45(1) of the Customs Act, 1962. The Bombay High Court in 2009 quashed the demands and held the notification ultra vires because the Port Trust’s custody already flowed from the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963. The Supreme Court held the notification valid: the non obstante clause in Section 45(3), which makes a custodian liable for duty on pilfered goods, prevails over the saving clause in Section 45(1). The pre-notification demands, which the Union did not press, remained quashed.
The respondent is a Major Port Trust under the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963. The Assistant Commissioner of Customs issued show cause-cum-demand notices under Section 45(3) of the Customs Act, 1962, dated 18 June 1996, 2 April 1997, 28 April 1997 and 24 May 2000, for pilferage of goods in the Port Trust’s custody during 1996 to 2000, and orders-in-original confirmed the duty demanded. On 11 October 2000 the Commissioner of Customs (Import) issued a notification and public notice approving the Mumbai Port Trust as custodian under Section 45(1) for the notified customs area. The Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the Port Trust’s appeals on 30 July 2002.
By judgment dated 28 July 2009 in Writ Petition No. 1278 of 2003, the Bombay High Court set aside the four orders-in-original and held the 11 October 2000 notification without jurisdiction and ultra vires Section 45(1). The Port Trust’s case was that its custody flowed from the Major Port Trusts Act, and Section 45(1), which applies “save as otherwise provided in any law for the time being in force”, did not allow the Commissioner to approve it. Before the Supreme Court, the Union fairly conceded that demands for the period before 11 October 2000 could not be sustained.
The Key Question Before the Court
Can the Commissioner of Customs approve a Port Trust, whose custody of goods is already governed by the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963, as custodian under Section 45(1) of the Customs Act, so as to make it liable under Section 45(3) for duty on pilfered goods?
Saving Clause, Non Obstante Clause and Two Different Kinds of Liability
Writing for the Bench, Justice B.V. Nagarathna drew on Aswini Kumar Ghosh v. Arabinda Bose, (1952) 10 SC CK 0012, AIR 1952 SC 369, and Dominion of India v. Shrinbai A. Irani, (1954) 05 SC CK 0026, AIR 1954 SC 596, on how saving and non obstante clauses operate. The Court held that the approval under Section 45(1) “operates only by way of an exception”; if another law already fixes custody and liability for duty on pilferage, the Commissioner cannot approve someone else. Under the Major Port Trusts Act, however, the Board’s responsibility under Sections 42 and 43 is that of a bailee and is conditional on its taking charge of goods, issuing a receipt and notice. Since Section 13 of the Customs Act frees the importer from duty on pilfered goods, no duty would be recoverable on pilfered goods without Section 45(3), inserted in 1995; the Court saw it as Parliament’s answer for cases “where no such liability is provided under any other law.”
The Court explained that the Board’s bailee liability is civil and compensatory, owed to the owner of goods, while the Section 45(3) liability is statutory and owed to the Revenue, so the two regimes are not inconsistent. The non obstante clause in Section 45(3) prevails over the saving clause in Section 45(1), the only precondition being approval as custodian. The Section 45(2) duties of a custodian apply whatever the source of custody, and pilferage, described by reference to P. Ramanatha Aiyar’s Law Lexicon as loss in a warehouse or in transit usually due to theft, is a breach of those duties. Section 23 confirms that pilferage is distinct from other loss, which does not attract duty under Section 45. The notification therefore “cannot be found fault with” merely because custody is also governed by the Port Trusts Act.
What the Court Actually Held
- The notification dated 11 October 2000 approving the Mumbai Port Trust as custodian under Section 45(1) of the Customs Act is valid.
- The non obstante clause in Section 45(3) prevails over the saving clause in Section 45(1); once approved, the custodian is liable for duty on pilfered goods.
- The Port Trust’s conditional, bailee-type liability under the Major Port Trusts Act is different in source, nature and object from the statutory duty liability to the Revenue.
- The High Court’s judgment was set aside to the extent it quashed the notification, but its quashing of the pre-11 October 2000 demand notices, not pressed by the Union, was left undisturbed; no costs.
Why This Judgment Matters
- It settles the customs liability of major port trusts approved as custodians for pilferage of imported goods.
- It explains how a saving clause and a non obstante clause in the same section interact.
- It distinguishes civil bailee liability from statutory liability for customs duty.
What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?
For Ports and Custodians
- Once approved under Section 45(1), a custodian is liable under Section 45(3) for duty on goods pilfered while in its custody.
- Liability does not attach for periods before approval, as the Union conceded here.
- Maintaining records and preventing unauthorised removal under Section 45(2) is a statutory duty, whatever the source of custody.
For Counsel
- Distinguish between ‘any other law’ and ‘any law for the time being in force’ when reading saving clauses.
- Note that loss other than pilferage is not covered by Section 45 duty liability.
- Cite the bailee provisions of the Major Port Trusts Act and the Indian Contract Act only for civil liability to owners.
Key Takeaways
- Mumbai Port Trust’s 2000 custodian notification is valid.
- Section 45(3) overrides the saving clause in Section 45(1).
- Bailee liability to owners and duty liability to the Revenue are separate.
- Demands for the period before approval remain quashed.
Frequently Asked Questions
Who is liable for customs duty on goods pilfered in a customs area?
Under Section 13 of the Customs Act the importer is not liable; the Court held that the custodian approved under Section 45(1) is liable to pay duty on pilfered goods under Section 45(3).
Does the Major Port Trusts Act prevent a port trust being approved as custodian?
No. The Court held that the Port Trust’s liability under that Act is a conditional bailee liability, different from statutory duty liability, so the saving clause in Section 45(1) did not bar approval.
What happened to the 1996–2000 demands?
The Union conceded that demands for the period before the 11 October 2000 notification could not be sustained, and the High Court’s quashing of those notices was not interfered with.
Conclusion
Union of India v. Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay, (2026) 08 SC CK 0357 confirms that port trusts approved as customs custodians answer to the Revenue for duty on pilfered goods, alongside their separate civil responsibility to cargo owners.
Practical takeaway: Port authorities and other custodians must treat Section 45 approval as a source of direct duty liability for pilferage and secure their premises and records accordingly.
Read the full judgment on CourtKutchehry: View judgment →
For more judgments, legal opinions and case analysis, visit courtkutchehry.com