2001 (7) TMI 853 - AT - Customs

Issues:
1. Failure to file IGM for cargo carried by vessel.
2. Locus standi of the appellant.
3. Responsibility of filing a manifest by the person-in-charge of the vessel.
4. Commercial relationship between parties.
5. Applicability of a previous judgment.
6. Locus standi of M/s. Astra Marine Pvt. Ltd. to file the appeal.

Issue 1: Failure to file IGM for cargo carried by vessel:
M/s. NOL (India) Pvt. Ltd. failed to file IGM for cargo carried by vessel M.V. Neptune Jasper. 10 containers were not manifested, leading to cargo valued at Rs. 2,14,88,146/-. Despite the failure, no reason was provided for not filing the IGM. An amendment was filed by M/s. Peacock Shipping Pvt. Ltd., and a penalty of Rs. 10 lakhs was imposed on M/s. NOL, which was paid on 22-5-1996. This appeal was filed by M/s. Astra Marine Pvt. Ltd.

Issue 2: Locus standi of the appellant:
The responsibility of filing a manifest lies with the person-in-charge of the vessel, usually discharged by the agents representing the vessel owner. In this case, the responsibility was fixed on the steamer agents, and any failure would result in penalties on them. The steamer agents cannot evade responsibility by blaming others for mistakes. M/s. Astra Marine Pvt. Ltd. could not stand in place of M/s. NOL as they were not directly responsible for the filing of the manifest.

Issue 3: Responsibility of filing a manifest by the person-in-charge of the vessel:
The responsibility of filing a manifest is on the person-in-charge of the vessel, typically fulfilled by the steamer agents. Any lapses in this responsibility lead to penalties on the agents. The steamer agents cannot shift blame to others for errors in filing manifests, as the responsibility is fixed on them.

Issue 4: Commercial relationship between parties:
There was a commercial relationship between M/s. NOL and Astra Marine Pvt. Ltd., evident from the letter requesting permission for Astra Marine Pvt. Ltd. to file an amendment on behalf of M/s. NOL. Astra Marine Pvt. Ltd. had indemnified M/s. NOL, indicating a commercial tie between the two entities.

Issue 5: Applicability of a previous judgment:
The judgment in the case of Northern Plastics Ltd. v. Hindustan Photo Films Mfg. Co. Ltd. was cited, but it was found not applicable. The Supreme Court in the cited judgment was discussing legal interest in goods, which differed from the present case where responsibility for cargo declaration rested solely with M/s. NOL, irrespective of any commercial arrangements with other parties.

Issue 6: Locus standi of M/s. Astra Marine Pvt. Ltd. to file the appeal:
It was concluded that M/s. Astra Marine Pvt. Ltd. did not have the locus standi to file the appeal as they were not directly responsible for filing the manifest. The appeal was deemed unsustainable and dismissed.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the issues involved, the legal principles applied, and the final decision reached by the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Mumbai.

← Previous Next →