9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Appeal against confiscation orders under Clauses (f) and (g) of Section 111 of the Act regarding cargo unloaded from ships. Analysis: The case involved appeals by agents of masters of vessels against confiscation orders issued by the Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai under Clauses (f) and (g) of Section 111 of the Act for cargo unloaded from ships. The first appeal concerned James Mackintosh & Co. as an agent of the ship Trade Fast, while the second appeal involved P&O (Indian Agencies) P. Ltd. as an agent for the ship Ultra Flex Orient. The Commissioner held the goods liable to confiscation but allowed redemption upon payment of a fine. The Commissioner's reason for confiscation was that the goods were imported and unloaded without proper procedures as required by law. Specifically, the goods were not included in the import general manifest, and permission for unloading was not obtained as mandated by Section 13 and Section 34 of the Act. The relevant provisions of the Act highlighted in the judgment include Section 32, which regulates the unloading of imported goods at customs stations, and Section 34, which governs the supervision of unloading and loading of goods by the proper officer. Additionally, Sections 30 and 31 outline the requirements for import manifests and the permission needed for unloading imported goods from a vessel. The judgment emphasized the importance of filing the import manifest within 24 hours of a vessel's arrival and obtaining permission for unloading after entry inwards. It noted that the manifest is typically submitted before the ship's arrival to expedite customs procedures. The process of amending the manifest for additional entries may take a few days, during which time goods may have already been unloaded. Regarding the pending applications for amending the manifest in the appeals, the judgment highlighted that confiscation under Clauses (f) and (g) of Section 111 would be premature if the applications were pending and not rejected. It cited a Kolkata High Court judgment to support the notion that accepted applications for manifest amendments should be treated as if the manifest originally contained the revised entries. As the applications in this case were pending when the Commissioner issued the confiscation orders, and there was no evidence of rejection, the judgment concluded that there was insufficient justification for confiscation. Ultimately, the appeals were allowed, and the impugned confiscation orders were set aside, indicating that the goods were not subject to confiscation under the mentioned clauses of Section 111 of the Act.
|
