9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved: Appeal against dropping demand by Commissioner, duty liability on Mumbai Port Trust, appointment as custodian under Customs Act.
Issue 1: Dropping of demand against Mumbai Port Trust The appeal was filed by Revenue against the order of Commissioner dropping the demand against Mumbai Port Trust regarding the alleged removal of 4 photo colour labs without payment of duty. The investigation revealed that the goods were short, leading to duty demand from Mumbai Port Trust and penalties against related individuals. The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeals by CHA and Mumbai Port Trust, leading to the Revenue's appeal against this decision specifically concerning Mumbai Port Trust. Details: The Revenue contended that Mumbai Port Trust authorities were liable for the duty on the pilfered goods as custodians u/s Section 45 of the Customs Act, 1962. The Shed Superintendent's statement and entries in the forwarding register implicated the Port Trust in the unauthorized removal of goods. The Revenue argued that the notifications under Section 85 of the Sea Customs Act, 1878, appointing Mumbai Port Trust as custodians, were still operative, making them liable for the duty. Issue 2: Duty Liability on Mumbai Port Trust The learned Advocate for Mumbai Port Trust argued that they were not responsible for the contents of the container until destuffing, and ownership remained with the shipping agent. They claimed that the short landing of goods was the responsibility of the vessel agent, not Mumbai Port Trust. The Advocate highlighted discrepancies in the weight of the cargo, indicating misdeclaration by the shipping agent, and refuted the claim of pilferage while the goods were in the custody of Mumbai Port Trust. Details: Mumbai Port Trust denied being appointed as custodian u/s Section 45 of the Customs Act, 1962, and relied on their custodial powers under the Bombay Port Trust Act. They emphasized that the duty liability could only be on appointed custodians, which they were not. The Advocate pointed out that the examination of goods did not take place due to the absence of necessary orders, and the short landing was properly documented and not disputed by the vessel agent. Final Decision: Upon review, the Tribunal found insufficient evidence to establish pilferage while the goods were in the custody of Mumbai Port Trust. The discrepancies in weight and the absence of proper examination orders raised doubts about the alleged pilferage. As a result, the Tribunal upheld the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) in setting aside the demand against Mumbai Port Trust, without delving into the appointment as custodian issue due to conflicting claims and lack of notification copies. Conclusion: The Revenue's appeal regarding Mumbai Port Trust was rejected based on the lack of conclusive evidence supporting the duty demand against them.
|
