2008 (12) TMI 470 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
Penalty imposed under Section 112 and 117 of the Customs Act, 1962 for amending an Airway Bill without permission of Customs.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Amendment of Airway Bill without Customs permission
The appellants contested that an Airway Bill is not part of a Cargo Manifest or Import Manifest, hence, its amendment does not require Customs permission. They argued that the Airway Bill is a contract between the supplier and carrier, a private document not needing Customs approval for amendment. The appellants claimed they acted under written directions of the Station of Origin, denying any personal interest in the amendment. The JDR supported the lower authorities' findings.

Analysis: The Commissioner (Appeals) referred to regulations indicating that the Airway Bill is a supplement to the cargo manifest, forming part of the Import Manifest. Rule 3 of Import Manifest (Aircraft) Regulation, 1976 and Levy of fees (Customs Documents) Regulation, 1970 mandate Customs permission for amending the Airway Bill. The Judge concurred, stating that any amendment in the Airway Bill after filing the IGM requires Customs permission as per Section 30 of the Customs Act, 1962.

Issue 2: Involvement in improper importation of goods
The appellants were penalized under Section 112 and 117 of the Customs Act, 1962, for failing to comply with Section 30 by amending the Airway Bill without Customs permission. The Judge noted that the appellants were unaware of the goods' detention by Customs and were following instructions from the Station of Origin. The Judge found no direct involvement in the improper importation, reducing the penalty from Rs. 10,000 to Rs. 1,000 each under Section 117 due to non-compliance with Section 30.

Analysis: The Judge acknowledged the lack of direct involvement of the appellants in the improper importation and their unawareness of the goods' detention. Considering these factors, the Judge deemed the penalty reduction to be lenient, emphasizing the appellants' limited role in the amendment process and the absence of intent to aid improper importation.

Conclusion:
The judgment upheld the requirement of Customs permission for amending the Airway Bill as part of the Import Manifest. While acknowledging the appellants' lack of direct involvement in improper importation, the penalty was reduced under Section 117 for non-compliance with Customs regulations, reflecting a balanced approach towards the appellants' situation.