2007 (9) TMI 88 - AT - Customs

Penalty on agent of vessel (steamer agent) on account of short-landing Failure to fully land the manifested quantity Short landing has been explained as due to re-export so it cannot be said, unauthorized landing to evade duty Hence, steamer agent can not be penalized

Summary

Issues:
1. Short-landing of cargo
2. Imposition of penalty under Section 116 of the Customs Act

Analysis:
1. Short-landing of cargo:
The case involved the arrival of a vessel carrying Di-Ammonium Phosphate at Bedi Port of Jamnagar. The appellant, as the agent for the vessel's master, filed a manifest for 24,200 MTs of cargo. However, as per the Port Officer's certificate, only 23,100 MTs of cargo were landed, with a balance of 1,100 MTs being over-carried by the vessel. A show cause notice was issued proposing a penalty under Section 116 of the Customs Act for not satisfactorily explaining the short-landing of the goods. The Commissioner found the charge of short-landing established and imposed a penalty of Rs. 70,00,675/- on the appellant.

2. Imposition of penalty under Section 116 of the Customs Act:
The appellant argued that the short-landing was explained satisfactorily as the balance cargo of 1,100 MTs was over-carried by the vessel and subsequently exported. The appellant contended that since the goods were re-exported, there was no loss of revenue, and thus, the penalty under Section 116 was unjustified. The Tribunal noted that the entire manifested quantity was not fully discharged, with only 23,100 MTs being landed out of 24,200 MTs. The issue revolved around whether the balance of 1,100 MTs should be considered short-landed and if the penalty was applicable to the steamer agent. The Tribunal found that the short-landing had been satisfactorily explained as due to re-export by the same vessel. As there was no evasion of duty and the reason for short-landing was legitimate, the penalty was deemed unjustified and set aside.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal with consequential relief, emphasizing that the penalty imposed on the appellant for short-landing was not justified given the circumstances of the case.