1979 (9) TMI 72 - HC - Central Excise

Penalty - Shortage in landed cargo - Liability of person in-charge of vessel - Writ jurisdiction

Summary

Issues:
1. Challenge to customs penalty imposed on a steamer agent for shortage of cargo.
2. Interpretation of Section 116 of the Customs Act regarding penalties for unaccounted goods.
3. Application of strict liability on the person in charge of the conveyance.
4. Comparison with a Supreme Court decision on penalty imposition.
5. Consideration of relevant facts and circumstances in penalty imposition.
6. Relevance of consignee's satisfaction in penalty assessment under Section 116.

Analysis:
The judgment deals with a case where a steamer agent, representing foreign principals, was penalized for a shortage of high-speed diesel oil cargo upon unloading at Cochin. The penalty was imposed under Section 116 of the Customs Act, which holds the person in charge of the conveyance strictly liable for unaccounted goods. The petitioner challenged the penalty orders, arguing that a reasonable margin should have been allowed for potential losses during transportation. The court referred to a Supreme Court decision emphasizing that penalties should not be imposed without evidence of deliberate defiance of the law or dishonest conduct.

The court highlighted that Section 116 imposes a strict liability on the person in charge to account for any shortages to the satisfaction of customs authorities. It was noted that the satisfaction of the officer imposing the penalty should be objective and based on a rational consideration of circumstances. The judgment emphasized that penalties should not be imposed arbitrarily, and the officer must consider all relevant facts before making a decision. In this case, the court found that the authorities had considered various factors, including the quantity discharged at the previous port and potential losses, before imposing the penalty.

Furthermore, the court addressed the argument that Section 116 should only apply if the consignee reports a shortage. It clarified that the consignee's satisfaction is not crucial in penalty assessment under Section 116, as the provision aims to prevent revenue loss. The judgment concluded that the penalty imposed on the petitioner as a steamer agent was valid under Section 116 and Section 148 of the Customs Act. Ultimately, the court dismissed the petition, upholding the penalty orders, and directed each party to bear their respective costs.