M/S TRANSPORT CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD. versus M/S GANESH POLYTEX LTD.

Citation: [2014] 11 S.C.R. 98 · Decided: 05-11-2014 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: JASTI CHELAMESWAR · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2014] 11 S.C.R. 98 
A 
M/S TRANSPORT CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD. 
B 
v . 
. M/S GANESH POLYTEX LTD. 
(Civil Appeal No. 1427 of 2007) 
NOVEMBER 05, 2014 
[J. CHELAMESWAR AND A.K. SIKRI, J,1.] 
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - s. 21(a)(i) - Complaint 
under - By the exporter of goods - Against the transporter -
C Complaint allowed by National Commission directing the 
transporter to make payment to the exporter with interest -
Held: Since the transporter admitted entrustment of goods by 
the exporter, the burden to prove that it (transporter) 
satisfactorily discharged his legal obligation to deliver the 
D goods, is on the transporter, which burden, it failed to 
discharge - Hence, National Commission rightly allowed the 
claim of the exporter - Customs Act, 1962 - ss. 41, 74 and 
75 - Shipping Bill and Bill of Export (Form) Regulations, 
1991 - Reg. 3 - Export Report (Form) Regulations, 1976 -
E Reg. 4 - Evidence Act, 1872 - s. 78 - Customs, Central 
Excise, Duty and Service Tax Drawback Rules, 1995. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. Import and export of goods into or out of 
F India is regulated by the Customs Act, 1962 and the Rules 
and Regulations made thereunder. The appellant, who 
claims to have exported 4 of the 5 consignments handed 
over to it by the respondent, could not have loaded the 
goods at Petrapole Customs station without having 
G obtained a BILL OF EXPORT duly passed by the proper 
officer and the person-in-charge of the conveyance 
owned by the appellant could not have either loaded the 
goods in the vehicle or departed from Petrapole Customs 
H 
98 
• 
• 
TRANSPORT CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD. v. 
99 
GANESH POLYTEX LTD. 
station without delivering to the proper officer an 
A 
EXPORT REPORT in the prescribed form contemplated 
under Section 41 of the Act. The best proof of the case 
of the appellant that it had in fact transported the goods 
in dispute beyond the Petrapole Customs station and out 
of the customs frontier of India would have be·en to 
B 
produce the BILL OF EXPORT and EXPORT REPORT 
pertaining to the four consignments in dispute. (Paras 29, 
38 and 39] (110-H; 111-A; 113-E-F; 114-A-C] 
2. Unloading of imported goods at any customs 
station in India is also regulated by the provisions of the 
C 
Customs Act, 1962. The appellant did not plead as to 
what is the procedure prescribed under the law of 
Bangladesh for the unloading of the imported goods at 
its Customs Stations? Nor did the appellant give the 
details of the dates of the actual delivery of each of the 4 
D 
consignments at Bengapole. It is a settled principle of 
private international law that foreign law is always a 
question of fact which is required to be pleaded and 
proved by the party whose rights or obligations flow from 
such foreign law. There is no pleading or proof in this 
E 
regard in the instant case. [Paras 41 and 42] (115-A-D] 
3. The defence of the appellant based on the letter 
dated 10.04.2002 that the appellant had delivered four 
consignments entrusted to it by the respondent at the 
Benapole Customs Station, Bangladesh cannot be 
accepted. The document (letter dated 11.04.2002) 
purports to be the internal correspondence between the 
two officers of the Customs department of Bangladesh, 
purportedly with a copy marked to the appellant. There 
G 
is no pleading explaining the occasion for such a 
correspondence. The proof of public documents is 
required to be made in the manner specified under 
Section 78 of the Evidence Act. There is nothing on 
record to establish that the abovementioned letter has 
F 
H 
100 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2014] 11 S.C.R. • 
A been duly proved in accordance with Section 78 of the 
Evidence Act. [Paras 45, 46 and 47] [117-E; 118-A-B,G-H] 
4. In the present case, it is not clear from the 
pleadings of the appellant whether the respondent 
8 claimed a.drawback either under Section 74 o.r under 
Section 75 of the Customs Act. In either case, the right 
to a drawback accrues to the exporter once the exporter 
makes an entry for export of the goods under Section 50 
of the Act and on the making of an order by the proper 
officer under Section 51 permitting clearance and loading 
C of the goods. A duty drawback does not necessarily lead 
to the inference that the appellant had duly delivered the 
goods in question at Benapole Customs station. [Paras 
51 and 52] [121-B, C, G, H] 
D 
5. In view of the fact that the appellant admitted the 
entrustment of goods by the resp

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