9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Challenge to Customs Department's penalty order under Section 116 of the Customs Act for shortlanding of cargo. Analysis: 1. The petitioners challenged the penalty imposed by the Customs Department for shortlanding of cargo. The vessel carried High Speed Diesel to Kandla, where a shortage was noted during ullage measurement, within permissible limits. The cargo was fully discharged, and tanks were found empty. 2. The show cause notice issued 6 years later alleged shortlanding based on shore tank outturn report, not ullage measurement. Despite the petitioner's explanation, a penalty of Rs. 36,214 was imposed, upheld in appeal. The petitioner approached the High Court through a Writ Petition. 3. The petitioner argued that penalty should be based on ullage measurement, not shore tank measurement, citing relevant court decisions. The High Court concurred that ullage measurement is scientific and accurate for determining discharged cargo quantity, unlike shore tank measurement. 4. Another contention was raised regarding the High Court's jurisdiction, as goods were discharged at Kandla. However, since the appellate order was from Bombay, the High Court had jurisdiction to entertain the petition, as established in a similar case precedent. 5. The Revenue's reliance on a Supreme Court case was deemed distinguishable, as it did not address the specific issue of choosing between ullage and shore tank measurements for penalty imposition under Section 116 of the Customs Act. 6. Consequently, the High Court quashed the impugned orders, ruling in favor of the petitioners. The respondents were directed to refund the penalty amount, with no costs imposed on either party.
|
