2010 (1) TMI 954 - CGOVT - Customs

Refund claim for short Landings of Naptha - goods as semi-solid form as per certificate of quality issued by the overseas inspection agency Held that - Allowance of ocean loss is available only to the bulk liquid cargo and not to the goods which are semi-solid and not volatile in nature - when it stands confirmed that Imported goods were 82.02% paraffins with only 12.15% napthene then there is no doubt to its semi-solid/oily state and non-volatile nature. As such the cited ocean/transit losses are not available in this case because impugned goods were not bulk liquid cargo prone to losses - Revision Application is thus rejected

Issues Involved:
1. Imposition of penalty under Section 116 of the Customs Act, 1962 for short landing of goods.
2. Nature and classification of the imported goods (Naptha vs. Naphthene).
3. Validity of documentary evidence and certificates submitted.
4. Applicability of Ocean Loss Allowance for the imported goods.
5. Jurisdiction and adherence to procedural norms by the adjudicating authority.
6. Quantum of penalty imposed.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Imposition of Penalty under Section 116 of the Customs Act, 1962:
The core issue revolves around whether the penalty for short landing is justified. The adjudicating authority imposed a penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- citing a short landing of 25.580 MT of Naptha. The applicant argued that the short landing was within the permissible 1% ocean loss allowance and should not attract a penalty.

2. Nature and Classification of Imported Goods:
The adjudicating authority classified the goods as semi-solid Naphthene rather than liquid Naptha, based on the chemical composition which showed 82.02% paraffins and only 12.15% Naptha. This classification was crucial as it determined the applicability of the ocean loss allowance. The applicant contested this classification, stating that the goods were liquid Naptha as initially assessed.

3. Validity of Documentary Evidence:
The applicant provided a Load Port Ullage Report and a Note of Protest to substantiate their claim of short shipment. However, the adjudicating authority doubted the authenticity of these documents, especially since they were submitted after a significant delay. The authority relied on initial documents such as the Bill of Lading and the certificate of origin.

4. Applicability of Ocean Loss Allowance:
The applicant argued that the short landing was within the 1% ocean loss allowance permissible for liquid cargo. The adjudicating authority, however, concluded that since the goods were semi-solid and not volatile, the ocean loss allowance did not apply.

5. Jurisdiction and Procedural Norms:
The applicant contended that the Assistant Commissioner exceeded his jurisdiction by reclassifying the goods during the de novo adjudication, which was beyond the scope of the remand order. The adjudicating authority maintained that the reclassification was necessary to determine the nature of the goods and the applicability of the ocean loss allowance.

6. Quantum of Penalty:
The applicant argued that the penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- was exorbitant and not justified given the circumstances. The adjudicating authority held that the penalty was appropriate considering the submission of false documents and the nature of the short landing.

Conclusion:
The government upheld the orders of the lower authorities, agreeing that the penalty was justified based on the evidence and the nature of the goods. The Revision Application was rejected on the grounds that the short landing was correctly calculated, the goods were correctly classified as semi-solid Naphthene, and the ocean loss allowance was not applicable. The detailed analysis by the original adjudicating authority was deemed proper, and the penalty imposed was found to be appropriate.

← Previous Next →