2016 (11) TMI 1476 - AT - Customs

Penalty u/s 112 of CA - Fuel Oil, Diesel Oil and Lube Oil from the Engine storeroom of the vessel, in excess of the declaration of vessel stores given on arrival of the vessel at Haldia dock - Held that - It is surprising to note that in the grounds of appeal it was requested to impose penalty on Mr. Zhang Jian Ming, the Chief Engineer of the vessel who was not made a party in the appeal. Hence, the prayer of the Revenue cannot be acceded to - the adjudicating authority already imposed penalties on the respondents herein under section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962. Hence, there is no merit in these appeals. It may be noted that the appeals of Mr. Chen Gao Sheng and M/s. Devi Shipping Agency filed for setting aside of penalty, have already been dismissed by the Tribunal - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues involved: Appeal against Order-in-Original passed by Commissioner of Customs(Prev.), West Bengal; Adjournment request by respondents; Confiscation of goods found in excess on foreign vessel; Imposition of penalties under Customs Act, 1962; Appeal dismissal by Tribunal; Relief claimed by Revenue; Request for penalty on individual not party to appeal.

Adjournment Request: The respondents sought an adjournment which was denied by the Appellate Tribunal due to the age of the appeals. The Tribunal proceeded to hear the appeals with the consent of the Appellant Revenue and in the absence of the respondents.

Confiscation of Goods: Customs officers detected Fuel Oil, Diesel Oil, and Lube Oil in excess of the declaration on a foreign vessel at Haldia dock. The adjudicating authority ordered the confiscation of the goods collectively valued at a specified amount under section 111(f) of the Customs Act, 1962. An option to pay a fine in lieu of confiscation was also provided to the owner of the goods.

Imposition of Penalties: Penalties were imposed on the Master of the vessel and two shipping agencies under sections 112(a) and 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962. The penalties were specified amounts for each party involved, with an additional penalty imposed on one of the agencies.

Appeal Dismissal: Appeals filed by the respondents against the Order-in-Original were dismissed by the Tribunal. The Revenue subsequently filed appeals against the respondents and requested specific relief related to the validity of the Commissioner's order and the imposition of penalties.

Relief Claimed by Revenue: The Revenue claimed relief related to the validity of the Commissioner's order, consideration of charges on an individual not party to the appeal for penalty imposition, and requested the Tribunal to pass any other order deemed fit.

Request for Penalty on Individual: The Revenue requested the imposition of penalties on an individual not made a party in the appeal. However, the Tribunal noted that penalties were already imposed on the respondents under the Customs Act, 1962. As the appeals of other parties were dismissed, there was no reason to interfere with the Commissioner's order. The request for imposing penalties on the individual not party to the appeal was not granted.

This comprehensive analysis covers the issues involved in the legal judgment, detailing the circumstances, orders, appeals, and decisions made by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT KOLKATA in the case.