2007 (10) TMI 179 - AT - Customs

Appellants, steamer agents were charged that they lent their containers to the Shipper/Exporter for transportation of misdeclared cargo & carried the stuffed & sealed containers to the port of destination - appellants had no knowledge of the cargo what was stuffed and sealed inside the containers dept already has given a certificate which clearly exonerates the appellants - Commissioner has not applied his mind in and has not given any definitive finding - entitled for refund of the penalty

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against penalty imposed under Section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962 on steamer agents for transportation of misdeclared cargo in containers lent to Shipper/Exporter.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Imposition of Penalty
The appeals arose from a common Order-in-Original imposing a penalty of Rs. 10,000/- each on the appellants under Section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962 for lending containers to Shipper/Exporter for transporting misdeclared cargo. The appellants, who were steamer agents, contended that they only supplied empty containers and had no knowledge of the cargo stuffed inside. They argued that the stuffing was done at Customs/Central Excise notified places in the presence of officers. The Commissioner's finding was based on a presumptive nature without concrete evidence, which was challenged by the appellants. They relied on a Tribunal judgment where a similar penalty was set aside in a comparable situation, emphasizing that the appellants cannot be held responsible for negligence in such circumstances.

Issue 2: Definitive Finding
The Commissioner's finding was criticized for lacking definitiveness and not considering the certificate provided by Department officers that exonerated the appellants. The Tribunal noted that the Commissioner did not apply his mind adequately and failed to provide a definitive finding. Considering the cited judgment where similar appellants were exonerated for supplying containers to Shipper/Exporter, the Tribunal concluded that the impugned order was not sustainable in law. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the order, allowing the appeals with consequential relief, and ruled in favor of the appellants for a refund of the penalty deposited by them.

This judgment highlights the importance of concrete evidence and definitive findings in imposing penalties under the Customs Act, emphasizing that steamer agents may not be held liable for cargo contents when they have no involvement in the stuffing process. The decision underscores the need for a thorough examination of facts and proper application of the law to ensure fair treatment of appellants in customs-related matters.