9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (1) TMI 419 - AT - CustomsLevy of penalty on the Shipping Agency - issuing the second Bill of Lading after canceling the first - Seeking amendment in Import General Manifest (IGM) of the name of the consignee - Circular No. 44/2005-Cus., dated 24-11-2005 - Held that - the only violation in the facts and circumstances is that shipping line in good faith and at the request of the shipper, have erred in canceling the original Bill of Lading and have issued a fresh Bill of Lading in favour of M/s. R.A. Apparels. The holder of the Bill of Lading, i.e., shipper was always entitled to make endorsement on the document of title in favour of the new purchaser during transit of the goods. Thus, shipping line including the present appellant (its agent) have erred in issuing the second Bill of Lading after canceling the first, once the goods are in transit. In this view of the mater, I uphold the confiscation. However, as the shipping agent has acted bona fidely at the request of the shipper, it is the case of minor infraction of law. - . Accordingly, I reduce the redemption fine to ₹ 2 lakhs and penalty imposed under Section 112(a) is reduced to ₹ 25,000/- (Rupees twenty-five thousand only). - Decided partly in favor of appellant.
Issues:
1. Amendment in Import General Manifest (IGM) regarding change in consignee's name and address. 2. Applicability of Customs Act provisions on amendment requests. 3. Confiscation of goods and imposition of penalties based on the amendment. Issue 1: Amendment in IGM - Change in Consignee's Name and Address The case involved an appeal by M/s. Orient Ship Agency Pvt. Ltd., a shipping company acting as a local agent in Mumbai, seeking an amendment in Import General Manifest (IGM) regarding the change in the consignee's name and address from Mushtaq Trading Company to R.A. Apparels. The appellant applied for this amendment after receiving a manifest correction notice from the port of loading. The Commissioner of Customs found that the goods were resold to R.A. Apparels by the shipper after non-payment by the original consignee. It was established that R.A. Apparels had the original documents and was the lawful owner of the goods. The Commissioner held R.A. Apparels as the importer under Section 22(2) of the Customs Act due to lack of evidence from Mushtaq Trading Company. The request for amendment post grant of Entry Inward was deemed a contravention of Section 30, leading to confiscation of goods and penalties under Section 111(f) and 112(a). Issue 2: Applicability of Customs Act Provisions The appellant argued that the amendment request did not have any revenue implication or fraudulent intent, citing Circular No. 44/2005-Cus. The appellant contended that the adjudicating authority disregarded departmental instructions and erred in confiscating the consignment and imposing fines and penalties. Referring to a tribunal ruling, the appellant emphasized that amendments should be allowed if no fraudulent intention is found, supported by documentary evidence. The appellant challenged the Commissioner's decision for not following departmental instructions and imposing penalties arbitrarily. Issue 3: Confiscation and Penalties The Tribunal acknowledged the violation by the shipping line in canceling the original Bill of Lading and issuing a fresh one to R.A. Apparels. While upholding the confiscation due to this violation, the Tribunal considered it a minor infraction of law as the shipping agent acted bona fidely at the shipper's request. Consequently, the redemption fine was reduced to &8377; 2 lakhs, and the penalty under Section 112(a) was reduced to &8377; 25,000. The appeal was allowed in part with consequential benefits. This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the issues of amendment in IGM, the application of Customs Act provisions, and the outcome of confiscation and penalties based on the amendment request and subsequent actions.
|
