9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (6) TMI 419X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dition of pre-deposit of penalty of Rs. 20,000/- I take up the appeal itself with the consent of both the sides inasmuch as the issue lies in a narrow compass. The appellant is a steamer agent whose duty is to get the goods loaded at the port of loading and get the same delivered to the charterer at the port of unloading. In the present case the appellant booked one container from Singapore declar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... showing his name. The ship liner M/s. PONL, to whom the container belong, during investigation, produced one fax copy of bill of lading showing the same seal No. 34714, which was found on the container. 2. The Asstt. Commissioner however in his impugned order has observed that since the Pasupati Trading, Nepal, which was shown as the notified party in the bill of lading was not one of the partie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not possible to ascertain whether the seal number found at the time of delivery at the port of destination/Kolkata, was the same seal which was affixed at the port of original shipment. To the extent that the appellant did not obtain the original Bill of Lading nor verified the seal number of original shipment, they are liable to penalty under provisions of Section 117 and Section 112(a) and (b) o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e survey report which inter alia mentioned that the container was received with seal intact and submitted that their liability as a carrier seizes with the delivery of the sealed container and they cannot be held liable for the contents inside the container of which he did not have any knowledge. 4. From the impugned orders I find that a bill of lading was produced by the charterer with the same ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
