9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Applicability of penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 for not manifesting one container. 2. Interpretation of Sections 30, 32, 111, and 112 of the Customs Act in relation to unmanifested goods and liability for penalty. Analysis: 1. The appellant argued that the penalty imposed under Section 112 was not justified as there was no mens rea, it was a genuine error, and the goods were not confiscated. The appellant contended that Section 117 should apply instead of Section 112 for non-filing of the manifest. The appellant cited relevant case laws to support their argument. 2. The respondent, representing the Revenue, supported the penalty imposed under Section 112, stating that the Steamer Agents are liable for penalty as the container was not manifested. The respondent highlighted violations of Sections 32 and 34 of the Customs Act and emphasized that Section 112 does not require mens rea for imposing penalties. 3. The judge analyzed the case, noting that one container was not manifested upon arrival at the Mumbai Port. The judge highlighted the importance of Customs Act provisions in ensuring proper control over imported cargo until clearance. Section 30 mandates the delivery of an import manifest within a specified time, typically done by Steamer Agents on behalf of the vessel's master. 4. Section 32 prohibits unloading goods not mentioned in the import manifest, with Section 111(f) allowing confiscation of unmanifested goods. Section 112 outlines penalties for acts or omissions leading to goods' confiscation. The judge clarified that unmanifested goods are subject to confiscation, and individuals involved in such goods are liable under both clauses (a) and (b) of Section 112. 5. The judge emphasized that Steamer Agents, acting as agents for the vessel's master, bear the responsibility to include all goods in the manifest. Failure to do so can lead to penal actions. The judge underscored the importance of following Customs Act provisions for effective import and export operations, stating that Steamer Agents cannot evade penal liability by claiming no individual employee was penalized. 6. Considering the need for Customs Control and efficient business operations, the judge upheld the penalty imposed on the appellants but reduced it from Rs. 1,60,000 to Rs. 25,000 based on the case's circumstances and the appellants' explanations. The judge ordered the pre-deposit made by the appellants to be adjusted accordingly, ultimately rejecting the appeal with the modified penalty amount.
|
