9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (5) TMI 866 - AT - CustomsLevy of penalty on shipping line u/s 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 - mis-declaration of goods in description as well as in quantity in bills of landing - HELD THAT - It was asked by the ld. AR please let me know whether the seal of the container was intact or not? This was answered in affirmative. As the fact has not been disputed by the Revenue and the mis-declaration of weight and description of the goods was found at the time of physical examination of the goods. Reliance placed in the case of M/s M S C Agency India Pvt Ltd 2013 (11) TMI 1230 - CESTAT CHENNAI where it was held that when the seal of the container was intact, in that circumstance, penalty on the shipping line cannot be imposed - The said decision is based on the decision of Hon ble Bombay High Court in the case of Shaw Wallace Co. Ltd. v. Asstt. Collector 1986 (7) TMI 106 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY . The penalty on the appellant cannot be imposed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Issues Involved:
Penalty imposed under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 for mis-declaration of goods in description and quantity in bills of landing. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Mis-declaration of goods in description and quantity The appellant challenged the penalty imposed for mis-declaration of goods in description and quantity in bills of landing. The case involved an importer declaring weight as 423.580 MTs for heavy melting steel scrap, which was found to be 487.670 MTs of re-rollable steel scrap upon physical verification. The appellant argued citing precedents that penalty on the shipping line cannot be imposed when the seal of the container is intact. The appellant also relied on a case where the main importer had gone to the Settlement Commission, arguing against the imposition of a penalty. The respondent, however, contended that mis-declaration of description and weight justified the penalty, and cited various decisions to support their stance. Issue 2: Legal precedents and arguments The appellant referred to the Tribunal's previous decisions and legal precedents to support their case, emphasizing that the penalty should not be imposed due to the intact seal of the container and the main importer's actions. On the other hand, the respondent argued that mis-declaration warranted the penalty, highlighting separate grounds for imposing penalties and rejecting the appellant's reliance on the Settlement Commission's involvement. The respondent supported their argument by citing several decisions from different courts. Issue 3: Tribunal's decision and reasoning After hearing both parties, the Tribunal considered the submissions and facts of the case. Noting that the seal of the container was intact and the mis-declaration was discovered during physical examination, the Tribunal referred to a previous case where penalties were not upheld due to similar circumstances. Relying on the decisions of the Madras High Court and Bombay High Court, the Tribunal concluded that the penalty on the appellant could not be imposed. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order regarding the penalty imposed on the appellant only, allowing the appeal with any consequential relief. In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision was based on the specific circumstances of the case, legal precedents, and the lack of evidence implicating the shipping line in the mis-declaration. The judgment emphasized the importance of factual findings and legal principles in determining the imposition of penalties for mis-declaration of goods in bills of landing under the Customs Act, 1962.
|
