9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (7) TMI 348X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd further imposed penalty of Rs. 30,000/- under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act on the importer M/s. Vinjak Metals. He had also allowed the amendment of IGM to reflect the correct weight/quantity but declined the permission to make therein change in the name of the consignee and in the port of delivery. 2. The facts resulting in filing of the present appeal may briefly be stated as under : 3. The steamer agent M/s. Lloyd Triestino vide letter dated 4-12-2000 requested for transhipment of goods brought in container No. CAXU 477674/2 manifested in IGM No. 3209 to ICD Faridabad via Delhi. He vide letter dated 13-12-2000 submitted that IGM as per master B/L in the name of M/s. Vinjak Metals. Subsequently, the forwarder issued the House B ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Commissioner of Customs after hearing, passed the impugned order regarding the confiscation of the goods and imposition of personal penalty, as detailed above. He, however, allowed the IGM to be amended to reflect the correct weight of the quantity but did not permit the amendment, for making change in the name of the consignee as well as in the port of delivery. 4. The above said impugned order of the Commissioner of Customs has not been challenged by the steamer agent M/s. Lloyd Triestino and the original consignee M/s. Vinjak Metals. The order has been challenged through the present appeal only by M/s. Century NF Castings, an associated company of M/s. Vinjak Metals. 5. The learned Counsel has contended that the appellants having ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... GM. No material had been also brought on record also to suggest that M/s. Vinjak Metals made any request before the Commissioner of Customs for substitution of the name in their place, of the appellants M/s. Century NF Castings by allowing amendment in the IGM on the ground that they both were associate companies. Therefore, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Commissioner of Customs, has rightly rejected the prayer for the amendment of the IGM for making change in the name of the consignee and in the port of the delivery. 9. The confiscation of the goods had been ordered by the Commissioner of Customs as there was misdeclaration of the weight. The excess goods were attempted to be exported in violation o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
