9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved:
The appeal and stay application against order-in-original u/s 65/2011-12 dated 23/01/2012 for violation of Customs Act, 1962. Details of the Judgment: Issue 1: Confiscation under Section 113(g) of the Customs Act, 1962 The Commissioner held goods valued at &8377; 1,16,82,808/- liable to confiscation under Section 113(g) for loading goods on a vessel without proper permission. The penalty imposed on the appellant/exporter, CHA, and Shipping Line under Section 114(iii) was contested by the appellant. Issue 2: Appellant's Argument The appellant argued that the responsibility for loading goods onto the vessel lies with the person-in-charge of the conveyance, not the exporter. They cited relevant judgments to support their contention that they had no control over the goods after entering the Customs area. Issue 3: Revenue's Contention The Revenue argued that the appellant violated Sections 50 and 51 of the Customs Act by filing the shipping bill after the vessel had sailed. They contended that the exporter cannot shift all responsibilities to the shipping line and should have completed formalities before the vessel's departure. Judgment Analysis: The Tribunal noted that the goods were loaded and the vessel sailed before the shipping bill was filed, violating Section 113(g) of the Customs Act. The appellant's failure to file the shipping bill before the vessel's departure constituted an omission under Section 114(iii), leading to liability for penalty. The Tribunal distinguished previous cases where shipping bills were filed before vessels sailed, emphasizing the importance of obtaining a let export order before goods are exported. The appellant's argument regarding lack of mens rea for penalty imposition was dismissed. Referring to CBEC's Customs Manual, the Tribunal highlighted the exporter's responsibility to obtain a let export order before goods are exported. Citing precedents, the Tribunal held that exporting goods without a let export order renders them liable for confiscation. Conclusion: The Tribunal directed the appellant to make a pre-deposit of &8377; 2 lakhs within four weeks, with the balance of the penalty waived upon compliance. The recovery of the penalty was stayed during the appeal's pendency.
|
