M/S. BRITISH AIRWAYS PLC. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [2001] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 152 · Decided: 06-11-2001 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.P. SETHI · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
MIS. BRITISH AIRWAYS PLC. 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
NOVEMBER 6, 2001 
[R.P. SETHI AND Y.K. SABHARWAL, JJ.] 
Customs Act, 1962 : 
Sections 2(31), 42, ]16 and 148-Penalty-Aircrafts unloaded cargo at 
the airport-Packages airlifted found short-Penalty imposed on the· Air-
ways-Upheld by the authorities and the Hi ~h Court-On appeal, held the 
Aitways liable as they are 'person' reprsenting the officer incharge to the 
officers of the customs as his agent for dealing with cargo off-loaded.from the 
aircr~ft. 
D 
Interpretation of Statutes-Court to keep in mind the consequences likely 
E 
F 
to flow upon the intended interpretation. 
Aircrafts of the appellants unloaded their cargo at the Airport. 
Thereafter, they were issued show cause notice alleging that some of th.e 
packages airlifted were found short and required from them as to why 
penalty as detailed in the show cause notices be not imposed upon them. 
Not satisfied with the reply, Assistant Commissioner imposed the pe.ialty 
on the appellant. Aggrieved, the appellant filed appeal before the Commis-
sioner of Customs which was dismissed. The Joint Secretary (Revenue) 
and the High Court also confirmed the order. Hence the present appeal. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD : 1. Even though the appellants are neither the officer Incharge 
within the meaning of Section 2(31) of the Customs Act nor his agent, they 
shall be deemed to be person representing the officer incharge to the 
G 
officers of the customs as his agent for the purposes of dealing with the 
cargo off-loaded from the aircraft of the appellants' carrier. Therefore, the 
liability for shortages of off-loading the complete quantity of goods can be 
imposed upon in terms of Section 116 of the Customs Act, 1962. 
The scheme of the Act provides that the cargo must be unloaded at 
H 
the place of intended destination and it should not be short of the quantity. 
152 
-
.. 
BRITISH AIRWAYS PLC. v. U.0.1. 
153 
Where it is found that the cargo.has not been unloaded at the requisite 
A 
destination or the deficiencies ar~ not accounted for to the satisfaction of 
the authorities under the Act, the person incharge of the conveyance shall 
be.liable in terms of Section 116 of the act. Besides the person incbarge of 
the conveyance, the liability could be fastened upon his agent appointed 
under the Act or a person representing the officer incharge who was 
accepted as such by the officer concerned for the purposes of dealing with 
the cargo on behalf of the officer-in-charge. Further the process of unload· 
ing and accounting of the cargo clearly and unambiguously shows that the 
goods are handed over by such persons who are the representatives of the 
carrier and represent themselves as an agent of the "person incharge" of 
the conveyance and such person who represent themselves as agent of the 
office incharge of the conveyance are accepted as such by the officers of the 
respondents dealing with the carrier. (158-F; 159-F-G] 
3. In the instant case all the authorities under the Act have found on 
facts that the cargo was being dealt with by the representatives of the 
officer incharge of the conveyance which was owned and are possessed by 
the appellant. the appellants have tried to take shelter under the technicali-
ties of law to avoid their liability without disputing the fact that packages 
or quantities in the packages were found short. [159-H; 160-A] 
4. Sections 42 and 116 of the Act are distinct as they deal with 
different contingencies. Even the officers contemplated under Sections 42 
and 116 are different authorities or dealing with different situations. The 
purpose of Section 42 is to not detain the conveyance unnecessarily and 
pass an order for its departure on prima facie satisfaction that the person 
incharge of the conveyance has unloaded the goods which apparently do 
not show the levy of a penalty under Section 116 of the Act. Even after 
compliance of the provisions of Section 42 if it is found that the goods 
unloaded are short of quantity, the Designated Officer under Section 116 
of the Act can proceed with the matter and impose penalty after following 
the procedure prescribed under the Act. Thus, the submission of the appel-
lants that after the issuance of an order under Section 42 of the Act no 
proceedings could be initiated against the officer incharge of the carrier 
would amount to negating the working of the Act aud defeating the object 
sought to be achi

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.