2010 (9) TMI 1067 - HC - Customs

Breach of the provisions of the Customs Act on the part of CHA - According to the Revenue CHA was expected to prevent the loading on the vessels on 25th December, 2006 - claim of CHA is that CHA could not have remained present in the custom area since it was closed - Held thst - it is an admitted fact that the containers were loaded on the vessel on 25th December 2006 and the same sailed on 25th December 2006 itself. In the circumstances, CHA could not have remained present on the day of holiday. CHA had no control over the loading of the goods on the vessel on that day. In the fact situation, it cannot be said that CHA has committed breach of the provisions of the Customs Act - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Liability of the Customs House Agent (CHA) for loading containers on a vessel without Let Exporter Order (LEO) on a holiday.

Analysis:
The judgment revolves around the liability of a Customs House Agent (CHA) for loading containers on a vessel without a Let Exporter Order (LEO) on a holiday. The factual aspect in dispute was that the shipping line was charged for loading containers on a vessel that sailed on 25th December 2006 without the required LEO. The Revenue contended that the CHA was expected to prevent the loading on the vessel on that day. However, the Respondents argued that since it was Christmas Holiday for Customs on 25th December 2006, the CHA could not have remained present in the custom area as it was closed, and therefore, they could not have exercised control over the loading of the vessel.

The Court considered both arguments and noted that it was an admitted fact that the containers were loaded on the vessel and sailed on the same day. Given that it was a holiday, the CHA could not have been present to control the loading of goods on the vessel. Consequently, the Court held that in such circumstances, the CHA could not be said to have committed a breach of the Customs Act. The Tribunal's decision was upheld, stating that the CHA was not liable as they did not have control after the goods were gated in, especially when the exporter had already been exonerated. The Court referenced a previous case to support this view, emphasizing that the CHA's lack of control on a holiday absolved them of liability.

Ultimately, the Court dismissed the appeal for want of a substantial question of law and made no order as to costs. The judgment highlights the importance of considering the practical limitations faced by CHAs, such as holidays, in determining liability for customs-related activities.