1983 (4) TMI 287 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether penalty under Section 116 of the Customs Act, 1962 should be refunded.
2. Applicability of the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act, 1925 on the liabilities of carriers.
3. Interpretation of liability under Section 116 of the Customs Act, 1962 in cases of shortlanded goods.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT MADRAS sought a refund of a penalty of Rs. 23,466.00 imposed under Section 116 of the Customs Act, 1962. The penalty was levied by the Deputy Collector of Customs, Madras on shortlanded goods in a consignment of special Glazed stamping foil imported on the vessel JALAZAD. The appeal was filed against the order of the Appellate Collector upholding the penalty due to unsatisfactory explanations for the shortages noted during a survey by steamer agents. The Tribunal was tasked with reviewing the case and making a decision on the appeal.

2. The appellants argued that the delay in arranging for a survey by the consignees, and the possibility of the shortage occurring after discharge of the goods while in the custody of the Port Trust, should absolve them of liability. Additionally, they contended that the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act, 1925, exempted carriers from responsibility for shortages in packages. However, the Tribunal noted that the Act primarily governs the relationship between the shipper and carrier and does not affect the statutory rights of third parties like the Government in cases of penalties under the Customs Act, 1962.

3. The Tribunal examined the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962, specifically Section 116, which imposes liability on the person in charge of a conveyance for shortlanded goods. It was emphasized that the filing of an import manifest declaring the details of goods carried establishes a direct liability under Section 116. The Tribunal highlighted a previous judgment by the High Court of Kerala, which affirmed the strict liability imposed by Section 116 unless the carrier can satisfactorily account for the shortage. The Tribunal concluded that the delay in survey by the steamer agents did not excuse them from their responsibility to explain the shortage adequately. As no evidence supported the claim that the shortage occurred post-discharge, the appeal was dismissed, and the penalty upheld.