1990 (10) TMI 214 - AT - Customs

Issues Involved:

1. Misdeclaration of quantity of fish in Import Manifests and Shipping Bills.
2. Confiscation and penalties under Sections 113 and 114 of the Customs Act, 1962.
3. Basis for the charges of misdeclaration.
4. Provisional assessment and reliance on survey reports.
5. Adjudication process and need for clear findings.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Misdeclaration of Quantity of Fish in Import Manifests and Shipping Bills:

The case revolves around the alleged misdeclaration of the quantity of fish in the Import Manifests and Shipping Bills filed by the appellants. The Customs authorities suspected discrepancies in the declared quantities of fish on the two trawlers, Hwa Yuan No. 101 and Hwa Yuan No. 102, leading to the initiation of proceedings against the appellants. The authorities recorded statements from various parties involved and conducted surveys to ascertain the actual quantity of fish.

2. Confiscation and Penalties under Sections 113 and 114 of the Customs Act, 1962:

The learned lower authority confiscated the two trawlers under Sections 113(d), 113(h), and 113(i) of the Customs Act, 1962. In lieu of confiscation, a fine of Rs. 10 lakhs was imposed, along with a personal penalty of Rs. 3 lakhs on M/s. High Sea Foods Ltd. under Section 114. Additionally, penalties of Rs. 2 lakhs each were imposed on the captains of the trawlers under Section 112 read with Section 111(f).

3. Basis for the Charges of Misdeclaration:

The learned Advocate for the appellants argued that there was no mala fide intention to misdeclare the quantity of fish. The declarations were made based on the knowledge of the exporters, the Master of the vessels, and other parties involved. The Advocate pointed out that the learned lower authority ignored the survey report of Lloyds and did not lay any basis for the alleged misdeclaration. The appellants had agreed to revise the quantity at the instance of the Zonal Director, Fisheries Department, under protest to avoid any hold-up of the vessels.

4. Provisional Assessment and Reliance on Survey Reports:

The Customs authorities conducted surveys through Lloyds agents and the Fisheries Survey of India to ascertain the quantity of fish. The learned lower authority did not rely on any of these surveys due to discrepancies and proceeded to penalize the appellants without a clear basis. The learned Advocate emphasized that the provisional assessment was resorted to for the production of drawings and plans, which were not considered by the learned lower authority.

5. Adjudication Process and Need for Clear Findings:

The Tribunal observed that the learned lower authority did not provide clear findings or a firm basis for holding the charge of misdeclaration. The discrepancies in the survey reports were not adequately addressed, and the technical specifications of the cargo capacity of the vessels were not considered. The Tribunal emphasized the need for the authorities to prove the charge of misdeclaration with credible evidence and make the appellants aware of the basis for the charges.

Conclusion:

The Tribunal set aside the orders of the learned lower authority and remanded the matter for de novo adjudication. The learned lower authority is directed to analyze the position correctly, consider the technical specifications of the vessels, and provide clear findings on the basis of the charges. The appellants should be given an opportunity of hearing and made aware of the basis on which the learned lower authority would proceed in the matter. The appeals are allowed by remand.

← Previous Next →