9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2009 (10) TMI 704 - AT - CustomsNon-filing of shipping bills - vessel sailed without the LEO from the proper officer of the Customs - redemption fine and penalty imposed on the exporter - penalties imposed on the CHA and the Shipping Line - Held that - As per Section 34 of the Customs Act 1962 the goods shall not be loaded except under the supervision of the proper officer. It is not clarified by the learned JDR how the containers were allowed to be loaded on the vessel without Shipping Bill and the LEO. Further more as per paragraph 11 of the impugned order wherein the shipping line has admitted that they were informed by the CHA that the Shipping Bills were processed at Custom House and would be delivered by tomorrow i.e. on 4-1-2007 and on 4-1-2007 the LEO was obtained - the penalties imposed on the Exporter and the CHA are waived of. Redemption fine imposed on the Exporter - Held that - the goods are not physically available and are not being exported under any bond the goods cannot be confiscated - redemption fine not imposable. Penalty on shipping line - Held that - the Shipping Line has loaded the containers on the vessel without obtaining the LEO which is in contravention of Customs Law for such act they are liable for the penal action - in the case of CSAV Group Agencies (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India 2, 80, 000/- on the Shipping Line. Appeal allowed - decided partly in favor of appellant.
Issues involved:
Imposition of redemption fine and penalty under Sections 125 and 114(iii) of the Customs Act, 1962 on the Exporter, CHA, and Shipping Line for loading containers on a vessel without obtaining the LEO. Detailed Analysis: 1. Imposition of Redemption Fine and Penalty: The case involved appeals by the Exporter, CHA, and Shipping Line against the imposition of redemption fine and penalties for loading containers on a vessel without obtaining the LEO. The Exporter exported three containers which were loaded on the vessel without the necessary documentation, leading to the imposition of fines and penalties. The CHA and Shipping Line were also penalized for their roles in the incident. 2. Arguments by the Parties: The learned Advocates for the CHA and Shipping Line argued that there was no evidence of connivance or ulterior motives in loading the containers without the LEO. They contended that the CHA had no control over the loading process and were not aware of the violation. The Revenue, represented by the JDR, argued that all parties were aware of the violation and cited previous cases where penalties were confirmed in similar circumstances. 3. Judicial Analysis: The Tribunal examined the submissions and found that the containers were indeed loaded without the LEO, contrary to Section 34 of the Customs Act, 1962. However, the Tribunal noted that the CHA had informed the Shipping Line about the pending documentation, indicating a lack of fault on their part. The Tribunal also considered the absence of physical goods for confiscation and cited a previous judgment to support waiving the redemption fine on the Exporter. 4. Decision and Disposition: The Tribunal waived the penalties imposed on the Exporter and CHA, considering the circumstances and lack of evidence of intentional wrongdoing. However, the Shipping Line was found liable for the violation and penalized. Citing a previous High Court judgment, the Tribunal reduced the penalty on the Shipping Line to 40% of the original amount. The appeals were disposed of based on these findings. In conclusion, the judgment addressed the legal aspects of loading containers without the necessary documentation, analyzing the roles of the Exporter, CHA, and Shipping Line in the incident and determining appropriate penalties based on the circumstances and legal precedents.
|
