9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (2) TMI 241 - AT - CustomsRevision of bill of lading - Penalty - Held that - To the extent that the manifest was filed in accordance with the prescription under section 30 of Customs Act, 1962, and the truth thereof subscribed to on the basis of documentation on record, allegation that section 30 has been contravened will not sustain - It is on record that the bill of lading issued at load port did contain the details as entered in the manifest. Section 30 also empowers the proper officer to amend an incorrect manifest or to supplement an incomplete manifest if no fraudulent intent is on evidence. In the present instance, the respondent had informed the adjudicating authority that the revision in bill of lading was made after the filing of the manifest and, therefore, no lapse could be attributed to the agent. It must be clarified here that the person who filed the manifest is not proceeded against in its individual capacity but as the agent of the shipping line; the lapse that is to be penalised is that of the shipping line and, if it be that of the agent, is also visited upon the shipping line vicariously - It is also a document of custodianship and a shipping line cannot issue a bill with a later date owing to implications of responsibility for safe delivery of cargo being alienated for the inter regnum - Decided in favor of the assessee.
Issues:
Appeal against dropping of proceedings for contravention of Customs Act, 1962. Analysis: - The Commissioner dropped proceedings against the company for contravention of sections 30 and 32 of the Customs Act, 1962. - The company acted as an agent for MV Royal Sutlej during the transshipment of a consignment from Nhava Sheva to Mumbai. - The company sought an amendment to the bill of lading to correct the consignee's name after filing the import manifest. - The circular issued by the Central Board of Excise & Customs directed penalties for incorrect filing of manifests. - The Tribunal found that the circular's directive on penalties cannot override the statutory provisions of the Customs Act, 1962. - The Tribunal highlighted the importance of distinguishing between genuine mistakes and deliberate contraventions in customs procedures. - The Tribunal emphasized that the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962 must be strictly followed in cases of confiscation and penalties. - The Tribunal noted that the inclusion of goods in the manifest and adherence to section 30 of the Customs Act were not in dispute. - The Tribunal clarified that errors in names of consignees do not justify confiscation under sections 111(e) and (g) of the Customs Act. - The Tribunal upheld the decision of the adjudicating Commissioner in accepting the company's explanation for the amendment in the bill of lading. - The Tribunal dismissed the appeal of Revenue, stating that it failed to establish legal grounds for sustaining the proceedings.
|
