9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (8) TMI 164X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ne dated 10-3-1987 and the other dated 30-3-1987, both valid till 30-9-1988. A query memo was issued by the Customs authorities asking for the complete itinerary of the Vessel `Frontier Wind (the ship on which the goods arrived) for the period 1-9-1988 to 1-11-1988 and it was seen from the schedule of the said vessel that it arrived in Kobe Port, Japan on 2-10-1988 and departed from that Port on 5-10-1988. Since the appellants produced a copy of Bill of lading showing that the goods were loaded on 30-9-1988 whereas the ship arrived at Kobe Port on 2-10-1988, the department was of the view that the Bill of lading did not reflect the correct date of loading of the goods. Since by the time the ship arrived at Kobe Port (on 2-10-1988), both th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... country and not the date of arrival of the goods at an Indian Port. The argument of the learned Counsel that Para 82 alone will govern the present case and it cannot be read along with Para 86, is not correct, as Para 86 deals with the question of validity of import licence and therefore, Para 82 has to be read along with Para 86. While the learned Advocate is correct in submitting that once the carrier has received the goods into his charge, even though he may keep them in a warehouse or store for some days before actually putting them on board, the shipper is entitled to receive his Bill of lading on demand, the matter does not end there. After the goods are loaded, the Bill of lading to be issued by the carrier must be a shipped Bill of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o licence and the goods were liable for confiscation. The Tribunal rejected the plea of the importers that the date of issue of Bill of lading viz. 29-11-1988 should be taken as the date of shipment. 4. The judgment of the Hon ble Delhi High Court cited by the learned Counsel in the case of Ahmed Ocmerbhoy (Exports) Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India reported in [1989 (42) E.L.T. 556] is distinguishable. As seen from the order of the High Court, the only point for consideration was whether the date of export was (sic) taken as 5-6-1976 which is the date of mate receipt or 22-5-1976 which is the date of Bill of lading. Para 33 of the Import Trade Control Policy for the year April 1976 to March 1977 as it existed at the relevant time, provided tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. 35,000/-. 6. Penalty has been imposed on the appellants as the Adjudicating authority has held that the Bill of lading has been pre-dated so as to give the impression that the goods are covered by licence in respect of validity period and since only the DEEC holder would be benefitted by such predating, it was done at the instance of the DEEC holder. We find that neither before the Adjudicating authority nor even before us, have the appellants established the date of actual shipment. Therefore, the Addl. Collector s finding that the Bill of lading was deliberately pre-dated, is correct. We are of the view that penalty has also been rightly imposed upon the appellants. In the result, we uphold the impugned order and reject the appeal. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
