2022 (4) TMI 660 - AT - Customs

Levy of penalty u/s 112(a), 114AA and 116 of the Customs Act, 1962 - confiscation of Cement Block - HELD THAT - Clearly, in the present matter Appellant has not acted in a responsible manner, thus any act or omission to do any act, which renders the goods liable to confiscation attracts penalty. In this background the charges under Section 112(a), 114AA of the Customs Act as well as Section 116 of the Customs Act are upheld. The impugned order under challenge, is upheld - appeal dismissed.

Issues:
1. Applicability of penal provisions under the Customs Act, 1962 on the shipping line acting as an agent.
2. Alleged misdeclaration of goods and responsibility of the shipping line.
3. Contradictions in the issuance of documents and responsibility of the shipping line.
4. Lack of finding of mens rea for imposing penalties.
5. Imposition of penalty under Section 116 of the Customs Act.
6. Comparison of the present case with relevant legal judgments.

Issue 1: Applicability of penal provisions on the shipping line:
The appeal contested the penalty imposed on the shipping line acting as an agent, arguing that it was not involved in the importation process and should not be penalized under Sections 111(d) and 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962. The appellant's role was limited to transportation, not declaration or importation.

Issue 2: Alleged misdeclaration of goods and responsibility:
The case involved a discrepancy where cement blocks were found instead of declared aluminum ingots in a container. The adjudicating authority held the shipping line responsible for the misdeclaration, emphasizing the importance of safe transportation and delivery orders issued by the shipping line for cargo release.

Issue 3: Contradictions in document issuance and responsibility:
The appellant argued that the issuance of documents, such as the "No Objection Letter" and Delivery Order, was based on information provided by the shipper and the original Bill of Lading. The appellant maintained that it acted responsibly by transporting the cargo as declared, despite discrepancies in seal numbers.

Issue 4: Lack of finding of mens rea for penalties:
The appellant contended that penalty proceedings require a finding of mens rea, emphasizing that there was no evidence of intentional wrongdoing on their part. The adjudicating authority's conclusion regarding the issuance of two bills of lading by the appellant was challenged due to lack of supporting evidence.

Issue 5: Imposition of penalty under Section 116:
The appellant argued against the imposition of penalties under Section 116, stating that as an agent of the shipping line, it was only involved in filing the Import General Manifest (IGM) and issuing the Delivery Order, not in declaring the cargo as aluminum ingots.

Issue 6: Comparison with legal judgments:
The judgment compared the present case with previous legal decisions, highlighting the responsibility of the shipping line in ensuring the integrity of the cargo during transportation. The differences in the present case, such as seal mismatches and missing inspection agency seals, distinguished it from the precedents cited by both parties.

In conclusion, the Appellate Tribunal upheld the impugned order, dismissing the appeal and affirming the penalties imposed on the shipping line for its role in the misdeclaration of goods and lack of responsible conduct during the transportation process. The judgment emphasized the importance of the shipping line's accountability in ensuring the accuracy and safety of cargo shipments, despite the appellant's arguments regarding its limited role as a transportation agent.

← Previous Next →