9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (9) TMI 260X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eamer Agent they filed an Import General Manifest for a vessel on 5-7-1995. The manifest did not record two cases consigned to an importer in Pune. The steamer agents sought to amend the IGM on 20-7-1995. The Commissioner of Customs in the impugned order held that in landing the goods which were not shown in the IGM initially filed, the steamer agent had rendered the goods liable to confiscation u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s mention in the impugned order. Thereafter the steamer agents filed an amendment. Shri Jagasia stated that this was a normal occurrence and such amendment was permitted to be made in terms of sub-section (3) of Section 30 of the Act. It is his submission that the non-mention of the cases in the IGM was due to lack of knowledge on part of the steamer agent and that no penalty was warranted. 4. I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s come out in the proceedings before the Commissioner also which reasons were reiterated by Shri Jagasia. In this case I find that a routine occurrence was converted into a case of great magnitude by the Commissioner. I find no reason in the circumstances to uphold the imposition of penalty on the appellants. 6. The appeal is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. Consequential relief is gran ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
