9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (12) TMI 1478 - AT - CustomsExport of goods - exporter did not produce the Shipping bills before the proper officer of Customs for grant of LEO and hence the goods were not cleared for exportation - Confiscation of goods - Imposition of penalty - Held that - exporter has no control over the goods, once the goods enter into the port of export. I also find that the matter is squarely covered by the decision of the Hon ble Bombay High Court in the case of Commissioner of Customs (Export) Vs. Kusters Calico Machinery Ltd. 2010 (3) TMI 474 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT Accordingly, following the ratio of Kusters Calico Machinery Ltd. (supra), I set aside the penalty imposed on the appellant-exporter - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues:
1. Penalty imposed under Section 114(iii) of the Customs Act, 1962 for failure to complete customs formalities before exportation. Analysis: The appellant, M/s Natural Sugar & Allied Industries Ltd., filed an appeal against the penalty imposed under Section 114(iii) of the Customs Act, 1962. The case involved the export of Plantation White Sugar where the containers were loaded onto a vessel before the Let Export Order (LEO) was issued. The appellant argued that the responsibility for completing customs formalities lay with the Customs House Agent (CHA) and the shipping line, absolving them of any liability. The Revenue, represented by the learned AR, supported the original adjudicating authority's decision to uphold the penalty. Upon review, the Tribunal noted that once the goods entered the port of export, the exporter had no control over them. Citing the precedent set by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Commissioner of Customs (Export) Vs. Kusters Calico Machinery Ltd., the Tribunal found that the matter was similar and decided to set aside the penalty imposed on the appellant-exporter. The appeal was allowed, and the penalty was revoked. This judgment highlights the importance of understanding the division of responsibilities in export transactions and the legal precedent's role in determining liability under the Customs Act, 1962. The decision provides clarity on the exporter's limited control post-entry into the port of export and emphasizes the need for adherence to established legal principles in customs matters.
|
