9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Imposition of penalty on steamer agents for short landed goods. 2. Applicability of Section 116 of the Customs Act, 1962 in case of pilferage. 3. Liability of carrier for goods not unloaded. 4. Interpretation of penalty provisions under Section 116. 5. Jurisdiction of Customs area in determining liability. Analysis: The appeal challenged the penalty imposed on the appellants, steamer agents, for short landed goods valued at Rs. 14,19,757 carried by m.v. India Goodwill. The appellants contended that the goods were pilfered on board the vessel and they should not be held responsible for the missing goods. They argued that the law and order situation in the Madras harbor was unsatisfactory, affecting their ability to prevent theft. The appellants also presented affidavits to support their claim of pilferage. However, the Tribunal noted that the affidavits lacked specific verifiable facts and could not be considered as evidence at that stage. The key issue revolved around the applicability of Section 116 of the Customs Act, 1962 in cases of pilferage. The appellants argued that since the goods were stolen on board the vessel and not unloaded, they should be exempt from liability under Section 116. Conversely, the Departmental Representative contended that the carrier is responsible for ensuring the safe unloading of goods and preventing pilferage. The penalty under Section 116 is compensatory in nature and aims to ensure accountability for unloading goods. The Tribunal analyzed Section 116, which imposes strict liability on carriers to account for goods carried by them. Even in cases of pilferage, carriers are liable for penalties if the goods are not unloaded. Pilferage does not absolve carriers from this strict liability. The purpose of Section 116 is to prevent goods from being spirited away without Customs formalities and to hold carriers responsible for unloading goods. The Tribunal emphasized that the carrier's liability exists irrespective of whether the vessel is within the Customs area. Ultimately, the Tribunal rejected the appeal, upholding the penalty imposed on the steamer agents. The penalty was deemed equivalent to the duty chargeable on the goods, in line with the provisions of Section 116. The Tribunal found no grounds for further reduction, emphasizing the carrier's responsibility for goods not unloaded, regardless of the location of the vessel.
|
