Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home  Phrase:immigration carriers liability act

May 21 2008

R Vs. Asfaw (Appellant) (On Appeal from the Court of Appeal (Criminal ...

  • Decided on : 21-May-2008

Court : House of Lords

... visa requirements are not satisfied. The Immigration (Carriers Liability) Act 1987 requires carriers to make payments to the Secretary of State in respect of passengers brought by them by ship or aircraft to the United Kingdom without proper documents, currently amounting to 2,000 per passenger. (The 1987 Act was repealed by the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, section 169(3) and ... been enforced by the imposition of heavy financial penalties on those transport operators bringing passengers lacking a valid visa where one is required. For example, under the Immigration (Carriers Liability) Act 1987, the United Kingdom authorities impose a financial penalty of 2,000 per passenger brought without either a valid passport or a visa where one is required. ... per passenger. (The 1987 Act was repealed by the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, section 169(3) and Schedule 16 as from a date to be appointed, and replaced by a new system of carriers liability under sections 40 and 42. But no date for the taking effect of these provisions has yet been appointed.) Carriers who carry passengers ... Immigration Act 1976, as amended. As long ago as 1986, a total of 541 airlines were each fined CAN$1,000 by the Canadian authorities for not demonstrating sufficient vigilance in their checking of passengers travel documents. The practice of imposing liability on carriers has been adopted by most European countries too. A study conducted for the European Council on Refugees and Exiles, Carriers Liability ...

Jun 21 2013

Island Aviation Services Limited. Vs. The Government of India and Othe ...

  • Decided on : 21-Jun-2013

Court : Mumbai

... visa on her passport. Respondentsauthorities have, therefore, held the petitionerairline, to have contravened the provisions of the Passport (Entry Into India) Act, 1920 and the Rules thereunder and have imposed penalty of Rs.1 lac under section 3 of the Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Act,2000. 3. In view of the order that we propose to pass, it is not necessary to set out all ... the personal hearing. 9. It is clarified that we have not permitted learned counsel for the petitioner to raise the challenge to the Constitutional validity of Section 3 of the Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Act. In future , if necessary, it will be open to the petitioner to raise such a challenge. 10. Rule is made absolute accordingly to the above extent. ... 22 January 2013 of the FRRO cum Civil Authorityrespondent No.4, as well as the Appellate order by Government of India, in the Ministry of Home Affairs, Foreigners Division (Immigration Section) dated 5 March 2013 are set aside and respondent No.4 is directed to give fresh hearing to the petitioner. The petitioner will be given atleast two weeks' ... , the petitioner has challenged the order dated 22 January 2013 passed by the FFRO cum Civil Authority, Bureau of Immigration, Mumbai (Exh.H) as confirmed by the Appellate Authority being Government of India in the Ministry of Home Affairs, Foreigners Division (Immigration Section) through its Joint Secretary (Exh.J). 2. In the impugned orders, respondentsauthorities have held that the petitionerairline ...

Dec 09 2004

Regina Vs. Immigration Officer at Prague Airport and another (Responde ...

  • Decided on : 09-Dec-2004

Court : House of Lords

... 1 of the Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Act 1987 provided that where a person requiring leave to enter the United Kingdom arrived in this country by ship or by aircraft and failed to produce a visa where required, the carrier by sea or air should be liable to pay a penalty of 2000. The visa regime and the imposition of liability on carriers were complementary ... then been enforced by the imposition of heavy financial penalties on those transport operators bringing passengers lacking a valid visa where one is required. For example, under the Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Act 1987, the United Kingdom authorities impose a financial penalty of 2,000 per passenger brought without either a valid passport or a valid visa where one is required. ... had concluded a parallel convention, had introduced a system of carriers' liability. Of 17 Western European countries only Ireland and Switzerland, at that time, had not. There was no evidence before the House to show the effect on prospective applicants for asylum of foreign countries' visa and carriers' liability regimes, but there is no reason to suppose that their effect ... intended to stop abuse of asylum procedures by preventing people travelling here without valid documents and then claiming asylum before they can be returned'. The logical necessity for carriers' liability to support a visa regime is surely self-evident. Why require visas from certain countries (and in particular those from which most bogus asylum seekers are found to ...

Aug 20 2014

Air India Ltd. Vs. Union of India and Anr.

  • Decided on : 20-Aug-2014

Court : Delhi

... 06.2014 (hereinafter referred to as the impugned order ) passed by respondent no.1. By the impugned order, the appeal preferred under Section 4 of the Immigration (Carriers Liability) Act, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ) against the order dated 25.11.2013 passed by Foreigners Regional Registration Officer (FRRO) cum Civil Authority, Amritsar respondent no.2, was dismissed by the respondent ... a penalty on the petitioner for the alleged violation of provisions of the Passport (Entry into India) Act, 1920 and Rules made thereunder. The allegation against the petitioner was that the petitioner had transported a passenger to Amritsar who had not cleared his immigration at the Delhi Airport; the passenger had been transported without a valid visa. The petitioner states ... Delhi by the return flight, however, this was not done because the said passenger was distressed and had arrived in India on account of demise of his mother. The Immigration Authorities at Amritsar had considered the mitigating circumstances and cleared the passenger. The petitioner submits that in this view, the levy of penalty is onerous and highly disproportionate. In ... an application for condoning the delay of 8 days was filed, however, the said application has not been considered by the respondent.7. Although, section 4(2) of the Act provides that every appeal be preferred within a period of thirty days, it is also provides that on sufficient cause being shown, the Central Government may permit the ...

Jan 06 1930

Luckenbach Steamship Company v. United States

  • Decided on : 06-Jan-1930

Court : US Supreme Court

... fugitives from justice, and in the acts relating to the liability of carriers by railroad for injuries suffered by their employees, Act April 22, 1908, Page 280 U. S. 181 c. 149, 35 Stat. 65; to espionage, Act June 15, 1917, c. 30, title 13, 40 Stat. 231, and to sabotage, Act April 20, 1918, c. 59, 40 ... to the seamen of all vessels of the United States when in the Canal Zone. In 1925, the Department of Labor, construing a provision in the Immigration Act of February 5, 1917, c. 29, 39 Stat. 874, relating to seamen on board vessels arriving in the United States from "any foreign port or place ... from "any foreign port or place," ruled that the ports in the Canal Zone should be deemed foreign ports in the sense of that act, Par. 4, Rule 6, Immigration Laws and Rules of 1925, and in 1926 the Comptroller General held that, as ports in the Canal Zone are considered foreign ports ... , Act June 15, 1917, c. 30, title 13, 40 Stat. 231, and to sabotage, Act April 20, 1918, c. 59, 40 Stat. 533. But the purposes for which these special provisions were made were such that nothing was subtracted thereby from the force of the provisions before mentioned, wherein, for purposes connected with importation, immigration ... proximity to said cities that they might safely be landed in a small boat would be a substantial compliance with the terms of the act." By 12 of an Act of August 24, 1912, c. 390, 37 Stat. 569, Congress, while extending to the Canal Zone the laws of the United States relating ...

Sep 19 2013

AIR INDIA LTD. Vs. TEJ SHOE EXPORTERS P. LTD. AND ANR

  • Decided on : 19-Sep-2013

Court : Delhi

... liability for an amount exceeding US$ 20 or its equivalent, it had to declare such amount for carriage and pay the applicable valuation charge. Rule 22 of the Act of 1972 restricts the liability of the carrier to a maximum of US$ 20 per kg. The statute thus placed a limit on the liability of the carrier ... Kodimaniandra AIR 196.SC 847). The rule was explained crisply in Suthendran v. Immigration Appeal Tribunal, (1976) 3 All ER 61.(HL) as follows:"PARLIAMENT is prima facie to be credited with meaning what is said in an Act of Parliament. The drafting of statutes, so important to a people who ... to the 1972 Act, to the extent that it limits liability for the loss of, or damage or destruction to goods: the liability of the carrier is limited to a sum of 250 francs per kilogram, unless the consignor has made, at the time when the package was handed over to the carrier, a ... the Supreme Court in East & West Steamship is of no assistance in limiting the carrier s liability, since the expression and phraseology used by the Carriage by Sea Act was entirely different from the expressions used in the 1972 Act. Learned counsel also relied on the decision in Ethiopian Airways v Federal Chemical Works ... therefore clearly barred by limitation. Furthermore, submitted learned senior counsel Ms. Gita Luthra, the single judge overlooked that under the provisions of the 1972 Act, a carrier s liability is limited to a sum of 250 francs per kilo gram (equal to US $ 20 per kilo) unless the RFA (OS) 18/2007 ...

Feb 24 1913

Southern Pacific Co. v. Schuyler

  • Decided on : 24-Feb-1913

Court : US Supreme Court

... the penalty specified in the act. In Utah, the rights of safe carriage on a common carrier are not derived from the contract of carriage, but are based on the law of the state requiring the carrier to use due care for the safety of passengers. 37 Utah 581 affirmed. The facts, which involve the liability of an interstate railway carrier for personal injuries ... Act of Congress of June 29, 1906, commonly called the Hepburn Act (34 Stat. 584, 585, c. 3591), which forbids common carriers subject to the provisions of the act, after January 1, 1907, to "directly or indirectly issue or give any interstate free ticket, free pass, or free transportation for passengers, except . . . to railway mail service employees, post office inspectors, customs inspectors, and immigration ... of the state requiring the carrier to use due care for the safety of passengers. 37 Utah 581 affirmed. The facts, which involve the liability of an interstate railway carrier for personal injuries sustained through its negligence by a railway mail service clerk traveling without payment of fare, and the construction of the anti-pass provisions of the Hepburn Act, are stated in ... having undertaken and assumed to carry and transport the deceased as a passenger by reason of the commission, cannot escape liability for the consequences of its negligence on that ground." And again: "We are of the opinion that, when a common carrier accepts a person as a passenger, he is not permitted to deny that he Page 227 U. S. 610 ...

Sep 25 2009

Mr. Mulloli Muhammadali, Karim Store, Vatsalatai Naik Nagar, Mumbai Vs ...

  • Decided on : 25-Sep-2009

Court : Maharashtra - State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (SCDRC) - Mumbai

... our poor consumer was the victim of those technical snags for which O.P.No.1 and 2 can not avoid it s responsibility and liability. International air carriers like Air Lanka must operate flights with full efficiency following all safety norms. They must operate them with all punctuality at their command. If flights ... belatedly. There was no negligence on it s part as delay in flight was owing to technical snag. The O.Ps disowned liability for the detention of the complainant by Dubai immigration authorities at Dubai airport because his visa had expired. So, for the plight of complainant, the O.Ps can not be held responsible. ... the problems faced by it s second aircraft which was to take complainant to Colombo to Dubai. In the absence of specific facts disclosed to us acting upon their generalized sweeping statement and common refrain of technical snag, we are not inclined to take their defence at its face value. Nothing is proved ... tables or elsewhere are not guaranteed and form no part of this contract and schedules are subject to change without notice. It is further clarified that carrier assumes no responsibility for making connections. 5) The O.P.No.1 and 2 further pleaded that complainant chose to fly with O.P.No.1 ... time he is having a business of selling fruits and vegetables at Bahrain. He pleaded that O.P.No.1 and 2 is Sri Lankan national carrier and O.P.No.3 is authorised booking agent of O.P.No.1. According to the complainant he had reserved flight tickets on Air Lanka ...

Apr 22 1901

Smith v. St. Louis & Southwestern Ry. Co.

  • Decided on : 22-Apr-1901

Court : US Supreme Court

... premises to carry out the provisions of this act." MR. JUSTICE HARLAN dissenting: I am unable to concur in the opinion and judgment of the Court. The grounds of my dissent are these: (1) The railroad company was bound to discharge its duties as a carrier unless relieved therefrom by such quarantine regulations ... to cattle coming from any particular portion of the state, but applies to the whole state, regardless of the actual existence of the disease or the liability to communicate contagion. It seems to me that the proclamation goes far beyond the authority of the statute, beyond the necessities of the case, and ... S. 259 . That case involved the validity of a statute of New York having for its object the protection of the people of that state against the immigration of foreign paupers. It was held by this Court to be unconstitutional because "its practical result was to impose a burden upon all passengers from foreign ... . 251 refused to deliver certain cattle to their owners, of whom the plaintiff in error was one, which it had received as freight from a connecting carrier, and which had been delivered to the latter in the State of Louisiana. The facts, or as many of them as is necessary to state, are ... of the commission or in the Governor's proclamation, and that, under the statute, there must be a finding either of disease or of a liability to communicate disease to justify the action of the commission. It cannot, of its own motion, put in force the quarantine laws of the state ...

May 03 1965

Zemel v. Rusk

  • Decided on : 03-May-1965

Court : US Supreme Court

... . . ." On its face, appellant's amended complaint, by calling upon the court below to enjoin the enforcement of the Passport Act of 1926 and 215 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, on the ground that those statutes are unconstitutional, meets the requirements of 2282. The Solicitor General notes that ... filed whether the Government will, in the event appellant journeys to Cuba, charge him under 215(b) with leaving the United States on a carrier bound for Cuba with a passport not validated for Cuba; leaving the United States with such a passport with the intent of traveling to Cuba ... passport after having visited Cuba; some other act -- or whether it will charge him at all. [ Footnote 18 ] Whether Page 381 U. S. 20 each or any of these gradations of fact or charge would make a difference as to criminal liability is an issue on which the District Court ... regulation, or passport restriction; (3) that the Secretary's restrictions upon travel to Cuba were invalid; (4) that the Passport Act of 1926 and 215 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 were unconstitutional; (5) that the Secretary's refusal to grant him a passport valid for Cuba violated ... his passport validated for that purpose, that the Secretary of State's travel restrictions were invalid, and that the Passport Act of 1926 and 215 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 were unconstitutional. In addition, he prayed that the Secretary and the Attorney General he enjoined from interfering with ...

Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //