2008 (10) TMI 199 - AT - Customs

Penalty Export without shipping bill and let export order from customs authorities It was a planned vessel and the exporter CHA and others all knew that the ship was to sail on 10-9-06. It was also in their knowledge that 9th and 10th being Saturday and Sunday there was no possibility of filing shipping bill on these dates. - A penalty is therefore liable to be imposed on broker - As regards the shipping line it was the primary job of the shipping line to load the goods only with the permission of the proper officer which was not done The penalty on the shipping line upheld - As regards confiscation of goods the goods were never available for confiscation and had already been cleared when the offence was detected and in such circumstances the goods could not have been confiscated therefore confiscation set aside.

Summary

Issues:
1. Confiscation of goods and penalty imposition under Customs Act, 1962.
2. Responsibility of exporter, CHA, broker, and shipping line in loading goods without proper documentation.
3. Contravention of Sections 33 and 34 by the shipping line.
4. Applicability of penalties and confiscation of goods in the given circumstances.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The case involved appeals arising from a common order regarding the confiscation of goods and penalty imposition under Sections 113(f), (g), and 114(iii) of the Customs Act, 1962. The Commissioner had confiscated the goods with an option for redemption on payment of a fine and imposed penalties on the exporter, CHA, broker, and shipping line. The exporter and shipping line were presently appealing against these decisions.

2. The exporter argued that the goods were loaded based on the broker's confirmation without their knowledge, emphasizing that the lapse was on the shipping agency's part. They contended that no illegal act was committed, as they followed Customs Act provisions, and the goods were not available for confiscation. The shipping line, on the other hand, claimed they loaded the goods based on the broker's assurance of providing export documents promptly, shifting responsibility to the exporter and broker for the omission.

3. The Departmental Representative (DR) argued that both the exporter and shipping line were responsible for loading goods without proper permission, highlighting the violation of Sections 33 and 34 by the shipping line. It was emphasized that the exporter and CHA should have taken steps to prevent loading without compliance with customs formalities, citing precedents where penalties were imposed in similar circumstances.

4. The tribunal found that the exporter, CHA, and broker failed to prevent the loading of goods without proper documentation, leading to the imposition of penalties. The shipping line was held accountable for contravening Sections 33 and 34 by loading goods without proper permission, displaying a casual attitude towards compliance. The tribunal upheld the penalties on the shipping line, considering their habitual violations. However, the confiscation of goods was set aside as the goods were cleared before the offense was detected, following a precedent by the Punjab & Haryana High Court.

In conclusion, the tribunal partially allowed the appeal, emphasizing the importance of compliance with customs regulations and proper documentation in international trade transactions.