9911796707
TMI Blog1986 (4) TMI 216X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed against the remaining five orders of the original authorities and the common order of the Appellate Collector. The appellants complied with these directions and hence all these six appeals to the Tribunal were heard together and are being disposed of under this common order. 2. The facts of the case are that the ship Banglar Preeti encountered very heavy seas and boisterous weather in the North Atlantic from 11-12-1978 to 14-12-1978 on its way from U.K. and Continental ports to Bombay and took shelter in the port of Bilbao. After leaving Bilbao, the ship again encountered heavy weather and rough seas on 24-12-1978 and 25-12-1978 on its voyage from Bilbao to Leixoes. As a result of the two encounters with strong weather and heavy seas, the cargo on the deck of the ship was washed away and jettisoned to save the ship from sinking. The vessel arrived at Bombay on 26-1-1979 with the cargo loaded from U.K. and Continental ports for discharge at Bombay. Since the cargo had been washed away or jettisoned in the aforesaid weather, there was short-landing against several items in the IGM and the Custom House issued six show cause notices calling upon the steamer agents M/s. Shipping ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he case, not much of documentary evidence was available with the appellants to substantiate their claim. The Appellate Collector in his order dated 20-1-1982 accepted the facts mentioned in the Extended Marine Note of Protest. So far as the present appeals before the Tribunal were concerned, Shri Bootwala submitted that he would not press for those items which were stowed in the hatches of the ship which were not affected by the adverse weather but could confine his submissions only to the cargo which was stacked on the deck of the ship which was either washed away by the stormy seas or had to be jettisoned to save the ship. 4. In addition to the levy of penalty, the Appellate Collector had also directed payment of interest from the appellants and Shri Bootwala stated that he would urge that the amount of interest should be ordered to be refunded. Shri Bootwala filed a copy of the stay order No. S/49-208/ 81-M to S/49-213/81-M dated 29-1-1981, a copy of letter No. IGM No. 1971/22-1-1979/S/49-208 to 213/81M dated 4-5-1984 of the Assistant Collector of Customs MCD and a copy of the letter No. 235/Custom/Banglar Preeti/ 1971 dated 31-7-1984 from the appellants to the A.C. M.C.D. in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s stage he could not ask for refund against this item number. Item No. 622: Shri Bootwala submitted that the consignment against this item covered 10 bags of vegetable wax and these were stowed on the deck. A survey was held on the landing of the consignment in Bombay which brought out the fact of shortage. However in reply to our question, Shri Bootwala submitted that he had no evidence to support his contention that this consignment was stowed on the deck or that the survey report was available to establish the shortage. Item No. 297: Shri Bootwala explained that this item covered cases of whisky. The bottles were broken but Shri Bootwala could not produce any evidence when we asked him to do so. He, however, contended that penalty in respect of this item was also levied twice. He requested that one set of penalty be refunded. Item No. 656: Shri Bootwala mentioned that this item consisted of 25 pallets having paper bags containing polyethylene. Some bags were torn and their contents had spilt out. The shortage was discovered on survey and the amount of penalty levied thereon was Rs. 1,405.53. Shri Bootwala stated that these bags were torn because of rough weather. However, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted that he had no objection for the grant of relief against this item as penalty had been levied twice against the same shortlanding. Item No. 297: Shri Pal had no objection to the grant of refund of one set of penalty against this item as the penalty had been levied twice against this item. Item No. 40: Shri Pal submitted that the correct item was 14 and Item Nos. 14 and 74 had been outturned as short landed by the B.P.T. The BPT s report stated that the outturn had not been finalised and the cargo against these two items had not been cleared in full. The Collector s action for levy of penalty against these two items was therefore correct. Item Nos. 139 and 397: No evidence had been produced by the appellants in support of their claim for relief against these items and therefore Shri Pal requested rejection of their appeal in respect of these items. Item No. 204: Shri Pal submitted that the cargo had not been cleared fully. However, there was no evidence to confirm that there was short-landings against this item. Even if it be held that the shortage against this item was on account of survey, the steamer agents were liable to account for the contents of the pakages under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rvey Reports would have been also available. Thus, the appellants could have submitted a lot of documentary evidence in support of their claims. But no such evidence has been produced except one document as mentioned above. Therefore the appellant s contention that in the circumstances of the case they are unable to produce any documentary evidence is not tenable, and their claim for relief by the appellants in the aforesaid appeals is not supported by any proof. It is, therefore, not possible to concede the appellant s request in the absence of any proof. These observations by the learned Advocate vide para 4 above. Examining the Advocate s submissions and those in the written memos of appeal it is found that the appellant s request for relief in respect of the relevant items is not tenable except in the case of Item Nos. 611 and 297. It is seen from the order of the Collector (Appeals) dated 20-1-1982 that the Item Nos. 611 and 297 appear twice in it and the Appellate Collector has rejected the appellant s claim in respect of these items under his aforesaid order. It is thus evident that double penalties have been levied in respect of the aforesaid items, therefore one set of pen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
