2006 (4) TMI 142 - HC - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Correct framing of the substantial question of law.
2. Liability of the 'person in charge' versus agents in filing the import manifest.
3. Applicability of Sections 2(31), 30, 32, 34, 111, 112, 116, and 148 of the Customs Act, 1962.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Correct Framing of the Substantial Question of Law:
Initially, the appeal was admitted on the question of whether a corrigendum correcting a typographical error in a demand notice should have been issued by the Commissioner instead of the Assistant Commissioner. However, it was later identified that this question did not relate to the present appeal. The correct substantial question of law was reframed to determine whether the 'person in charge' of a vessel, as defined in Section 2(31) of the Customs Act, 1962, is solely responsible for filing the import manifest or if his agents (steamer agent and slot charterer) are also responsible under Sections 30 and 148(2) of the Customs Act, 1962.

2. Liability of the 'Person in Charge' Versus Agents in Filing the Import Manifest:
The facts of the case involved the vessel M.V. Kedah arriving at Mumbai port with a cargo of Propylene Glycol. The Import General Manifest (IGM) filed was inaccurate, leading to the unloading of both manifested and unmanifested cargo. The steamer agent (M/s. Patvolk) and the slot charterer (M/s. Shahi Containers) acted on behalf of the master of the vessel, acknowledging the mistake in the IGM and requesting its amendment. They waived the show-cause notice and agreed to pay the penalty imposed by the Assistant Commissioner of Customs.

3. Applicability of Sections 2(31), 30, 32, 34, 111, 112, 116, and 148 of the Customs Act, 1962:
- Section 2(31) defines 'person in charge' as the master of the vessel.
- Section 30 mandates the delivery of an import manifest by the person in charge or a specified person, with provisions for amendments if the manifest is incorrect or incomplete.
- Section 32 prohibits unloading of goods not specified in the import manifest.
- Section 34 requires supervision by a proper officer for unloading imported goods.
- Section 111 provides for confiscation of goods not mentioned in the import manifest.
- Section 112 imposes penalties for improper importation of goods.
- Section 116 imposes penalties for not accounting for goods.
- Section 148 holds agents of the person in charge liable for obligations and penalties incurred.

The Tribunal had held that neither the slot charterer nor the steamer agent could be penalized for failing to file the full and correct manifest, as the 'person in charge' was defined as the master of the vessel. However, this was found to be erroneous. The Tribunal overlooked Sections 30 and 148, which allow for the liability of agents representing the 'person in charge'. The Supreme Court's judgment in British Airways plc v. Union of India was cited, affirming that agents can be held liable for penalties and confiscations.

Conclusion:
The High Court concluded that both M/s. Patvolk and M/s. Shahi Containers, acting as representatives of the master of the vessel, were responsible for the inaccuracies in the import manifest. The Tribunal's decision was set aside, and the appeal was allowed, holding the agents liable under Section 148(2) for the penalties imposed. The High Court emphasized the importance of agents' accountability in ensuring compliance with customs regulations.