1985 (6) TMI 133 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Transfer of revision application to the Tribunal.
2. Imposition of penalty for shortlanding of urea bags.
3. Consideration of evidence and contentions by the Customs authorities.
4. Application of Section 116 of the Customs Act.
5. Failure to consider relevant documents and contentions.
6. Remand of the matter for fresh consideration.

Analysis:

1. The revision application filed before the Government of India against an order passed by the Central Board of Excise & Customs was statutorily transferred to the Tribunal for hearing as an appeal.

2. The steamer agents were issued a show cause notice regarding the shortlanding of urea bags. The Additional Collector imposed a penalty for shortlanding based on the Port out-turn report. The appellants contended that the cargo arrived in sound condition, and discrepancies were due to various factors, including cargo taken out by the consignee directly. They argued for condonation of the shortlanding percentage.

3. During the appeal, the appellants reiterated their contentions, including the hatch survey findings and discrepancies in the out-turn report. The Customs authorities relied on the outturn report and did not consider the appellants' arguments regarding normal condonation practices and missing quantities.

4. The liability to pay a penalty for shortlanded goods is governed by Section 116 of the Customs Act. The burden is initially on the Customs authorities to prove the shortlanding, and the steamer agent must account for any deficiency to avoid penalty.

5. The Tribunal noted that the Customs authorities did not adequately consider crucial documents, such as the statement of facts signed by the Receivers' Agent, and failed to address the appellants' arguments about missing quantities and condonation practices. The absence of consideration for sweepings and consignee actions was also highlighted.

6. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, set aside the previous orders, and remanded the matter to the Additional Collector for a fresh consideration based on the observations made in the Tribunal's order. The Tribunal emphasized the need for a more thorough examination of the evidence and contentions presented by the appellants.

This detailed analysis of the judgment provides a comprehensive overview of the issues involved and the Tribunal's decision to remand the matter for further consideration.