9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Penalty imposed under Section 116 of the Customs Act on a steamer agent for failure to account for consignments. 2. Dispute regarding penalty amount and short landing of consignments. 3. Discrepancy in the quantity of pigments loaded on a vessel and penalty imposed for not amending bill of lading. Analysis: 1. The appeal challenged the penalty imposed on the appellant, a steamer agent, under Section 116 of the Customs Act for failing to account for two consignments manifested for landing in India. The appellant's advocate argued against the high penalty, citing a Delhi High Court decision and contending that the carrier did not act mala fide. The Additional Collector refrained from imposing the maximum penalty, and the tribunal found no reason to interfere with the penalty. 2. Regarding the first item, the appellant acknowledged the short landing of Item 173 but disputed the penalty amount. The advocate argued that the penalty should not be equal to the duty payable without evidence of mala fide intent. The tribunal noted the distinction from a previous case and upheld the penalty decision as the Additional Collector did not impose the maximum penalty allowed under Section 116. 3. The second item involved a dispute over the quantity of pigments loaded on the vessel. The appellant contended that while the bill of lading and manifest showed three pallets, only one was found shortlanded, indicating that two pallets had been cleared. The Additional Collector imposed a penalty for not amending the bill of lading despite evidence provided by the appellant, including BPT tally sheets and customs-endorsed packing lists, showing only two pallets loaded. The tribunal found that the evidence established no shortage and that the failure to amend the BPT outturn did not warrant a penalty. The penalty imposed for this item was set aside, and the appeal was partially allowed.
|
