9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Interpretation of Import General Manifest - Short-landing of pallets - Imposition of penalty on agents of foreign flag vessel. Analysis: The judgment delivered by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay involved a dispute regarding the imposition of a penalty on the petitioners, who were agents of a foreign flag vessel. The petitioners had filed an Import General Manifest in July 1984, declaring the contents of three containers brought by the vessel to Bombay. The vessel discharged the containers with their seals intact at the Bombay Port Trust Docks and then sailed from Bombay. However, the respondents alleged that three pallets were short-landed based on the out-turn report of the port trust. The petitioners received a show cause notice regarding the alleged short-landing and responded by stating that the containers were discharged with their seals intact, thus contesting the imposition of the penalty. Despite the petitioners' explanation, respondent No. 1 imposed a penalty after finding that the containers landed with seals intact as per the tally sheets provided by the petitioners. The petitioners appealed the decision, but both the appellate authority and the revisional authority upheld the penalty. In the judgment, it was highlighted that the appellate and revisional authorities made erroneous observations to justify imposing the penalty. The court noted that the seals being rusted and the seal numbers not being visible did not necessarily mean that the containers did not land with seals intact. Additionally, the destuffing tally sheets indicated that the full contents of the containers were destuffed, even though some pallets were lost in the port area. The court agreed with the petitioners' argument that the penalty should not be levied based on assumptions about the seals' integrity. Ultimately, the court ruled in favor of the petitioners, finding that the penalty imposed by respondent No. 1 and upheld by the appellate and revisional authorities could not be sustained. The court made the rule absolute in favor of the petitioners, with no order as to costs.
|
