Case Details: Container Corporation of India Ltd Versus Commissioner of Customs, Nhava Sheva (2025) 33 Centax 71 (S.C.)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Joymalya Bagchi, JJ.
- S/Shri Rajiv Shakdher, Sr. Adv., Ms. Lalit Mohini Bhat, Siddarth Agarwal, Karan Khaitani, Jonathan Ivan Rajan, Advs. and Ms. Hetu Arora Sethi, AOR, for the Petitioner
- S/Shri S. Dwarakanath, A.S.G., Udai Khanna, Anmol Chandan, Prashant Singh-II, Ms. Misha Kumar, Ms. Satya Jha, Advs. and Gurmeet Singh Makker, AOR, for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
The appellant, acting as a Customs Cargo Service (CFS) provider, was entrusted with the safe custody of a sealed container containing goods declared as stainless steel household articles. During the period of custody, the container was tampered with, and prohibited goods, namely Red Sanders, which had been illegally exported in place of the declared goods, were found to have been stolen. A panchanama recorded the seizure and storage of the container. The High Court held that the CFS was under a statutory obligation under Regulation 5(6) of the Handling of Cargo in Customs Areas Regulations, 2009 to indemnify the loss of goods that occurred due to theft while in its custody, notwithstanding that the exporter was facing criminal proceedings. Further, the High Court found that the appellant had breached its responsibilities under Regulations 6(1)(a), (b), (f), (i), and (q) of the same Regulations for failing to adequately discharge its duties in safeguarding the goods. The matter was accordingly placed before the Supreme Court via Special Leave Petition (SLP).
High Court Held
The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that there was no reason to interfere with the judgment of the High Court. The Court observed that the statutory obligations imposed under Regulation 5 read with Regulation 6 of the Handling of Cargo in Customs Areas Regulations, 2009, and Sections 45 and 141 of the Customs Act, 1962, clearly required the CFS to indemnify losses arising from theft of goods kept in its safe custody. The Supreme Court upheld that the breach of duties by the CFS justified invocation of the relevant provisions and dismissal of the SLP.
List of Cases Reviewed
- Container Corporation of India Ltd. v. Commissioner — (2023) 13 Centax 205 (Bom.)
