9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the date of shipment. 2. Allegation of deliberate presentation of an anti-dated Bill of Lading (B/L). Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of the date of shipment: The appellants imported four consignments of cassia and claimed clearance under the Open General License (OGL) as per Sr.No. 62 of Appx. 6 part II. They presented a Bill of Lading (B/L) dated 28-11-1988. However, the import of cassia under OGL was disallowed by Public Notice No. 82 dated 29-11-1988. According to para 3 of the Public Notice, import of Cloves and Cinnamon/Cassia by eligible importers was not permitted under OGL unless irrevocable letters of credit (L/C) had been opened and established before the date of the Public Notice, and shipments were made within 90 days from the date of the Public Notice. The appellants did not open an L/C before the shipment of the goods. Customs authorities received information questioning the correctness of the shipment dates mentioned in the B/L. Enquiries revealed that the goods were actually loaded on board the vessel on 19-12-1988, not on 28-11-1988 as shown on the B/L. This led to the adjudication proceedings and the order of confiscation and imposition of a penalty. The appellants argued that the shipment date should be considered as 28-11-1988, the date on the B/L, as per para 82 of the Handbook, which states that the date of shipment for sea shipments is the date on the B/L. They also contended that the Correction Advice confirmed the B/L date as 28-11-1988, despite correcting the loading date to 19-12-1988. The respondents countered that the actual shipment date should be considered as 19-12-1988, the date the goods were loaded on board the vessel, as per Rule 7 of the Schedule of Rules relating to B/L in the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act, 1925. They argued that the B/L date is prima facie evidence of shipment, but the actual loading date is the relevant date for determining the validity of the import license. The tribunal concluded that the date of actual shipment, 19-12-1988, should be considered for determining the validity of the import license, as per para 86 of the Handbook, which states that the validity of the import license is decided with reference to the date of actual shipment. The tribunal rejected the argument that the date of issue of the B/L (28-11-1988) should be taken as the date of shipment. Consequently, the goods could not be allowed under OGL but only under a valid license, and since no L/C was opened, the goods were liable for confiscation. 2. Allegation of deliberate presentation of an anti-dated Bill of Lading (B/L): The appellants contended that there was no mala fide intention on their part, as they were unaware of the Correction Advice until after the adjudication. They argued that they acted in good faith, believing the goods were loaded on 28-11-1988, as per the B/L date. They also pointed out that they submitted the Bill of Entry (B/E) for warehousing, indicating no intention to manipulate the B/L date. The respondents argued that the appellants, knowing about the Public Notice, did not take any steps to stop the consignment or approach the licensing authority for a license. They contended that the appellants deliberately produced an anti-dated B/L to avail clearance under OGL. The tribunal found no evidence of deliberate manipulation by the appellants. The letter from the Steamer Agents indicated that the cargo was received by the Shipping Lines at Hong Kong in November, and the date of issue of the B/L as 28-11-1988 was plausible. The tribunal concluded that the wrong stamping of the loading date was due to a clerical mistake, and there was no deliberate attempt by the appellants to present an anti-dated B/L. The tribunal also noted that two other consignments of cassia imported by the same vessel were cleared without questioning the B/L date, indicating no suspicion of document manipulation. Judgment: The tribunal confirmed the order of confiscation but set aside the penalty. The redemption fine was reduced from Rs. Nine lakhs to Rs. Four lakhs fifty thousand. The appellants were granted consequential relief. The appeal was disposed of accordingly.
|
