This was an appeal against a decision of a Single Judge of the High Court: see MSC Textiles (Pvt) Ltd v Asian Pollux 2007 CLD 1465 (CMI1671). The respondent entrusted three consignments of goods to the appellant carrier for carriage from Pakistan to Bangkok, Thailand. The consignee refused to take delivery of the consignments. The shipping documents were therefore never transmitted to the consignee. The ownership of the goods remained with the respondent. Negotiations with a subsequent buyer also failed. The respondent instructed the carrier to arrange the re-export of the goods back to Pakistan. However, the goods were auctioned by the Thai customs authorities. The carrier argued that the respondent's claim was time-barred on an application of art 3.6 of the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act 1925 (COGSA), and that the respondent's action in rem was not maintainable under the admiralty jurisdiction, as the carrier was merely a slot charterer of the vessels in question. The single Judge held in favour of the respondent, finding that the suit was in time, and that the Court had admiralty jurisdiction. The carrier appealed.

Held: Appeal dismissed.

Responsibility of the carrier, as embodied in art 3 of the Schedule of COGSA, is to discharge the goods carried. Where and to whom, is explained in art 3.6, which says that the discharge of goods means removal of goods into the custody of the person entitled to delivery thereof under the contract of carriage. A bare reading of the section provides that discharge of goods does not mean simply to discharge off-board at Bangkok, Thailand, but to the person who is entitled to take delivery. So if the consignee because of his own reasons failed to get a release of the consignment, the responsibility of the carrier does not end there. It was the responsibility of the carrier, if the consignee did not come forward to receive delivery of the goods, to give proper notice to him and a reasonable time to pick up the goods. Even if no diligent response came to the carrier from the consignee, the carrier should had followed the local port laws, customs and regulations for its careful delivery to the customs authorities. All these factors, coupled with the fact of whether the appellant carrier had informed the respondent in time, requires evidence, which at this primary stage is not available on record.

A slot charter is a relatively recent device of sharing the carrying capacity of ship. In such an arrangement, two or more operators, usually of similar size vessels, in a particular geographic trade, will agree to share space on another vessel. The attraction of such an arrangement is evident. Space is utilised more efficiently and operating costs are reduced, while service is expanded. Thus, when a party agrees to provide a space on board its vessel for transportation, it cannot escape from the liability on breach of contract from a claim in rem and personam against the offending vessel and its beneficial owner who operates it. The appellant, who beneficially owned and operated the three vessels, namely, the Asian Pollux, the Hyundai Sprinter, and the Hyundai Highway, was responsible to carry the goods and discharge the same at the port of destination ie, Bangkok, Thailand, as slot charterer. The carrying ship was operated by the owner or disponent owner, and the appellant, having majority shares in the vessel, was responsible for the damage caused to the respondent.