9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (12) TMI 516X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er]. - This is an appeal filed by the Revenue. The respondents had leased their container to M/s. Moon Light Shipping Services (P) Ltd., Chennai (Moonlight). The container was stuffed with white marble slabs entered for export under Shipping Bill No. 1923645 dated 20-10-2004. The container stuffed with white marble slabs was diverted on its movement from Viking Container Freight Station to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ions. (i) IMSA Shipping Agency Pvt. Ltd. v. CC, 2002 (145) E.L.T. 55 (Cal.) (ii) United States Lines Agency v. CC (P), Mumbai, 1998 (101) E.L.T. 602 (Tri.) (iii) Orient Ship Agency (P) Ltd. v. CC, 1993 (63) E.L.T. 489 (Tri.) (iv) AP Muller (Maersk Line) v. CC (P), Mumbai, 1994 (69) E.L.T. 425 (Tri.) He vacated penalty imp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vacated the fine and penalty. 2. Heard both sides. The impugned order held that the container was not liable for confiscation as a "package" under Section 118(b) of the Act relying on several judicial authorities. Section 118(b) reads as follows. "........Where any goods are brought in a package within the limits of a customs area for the purpose of exportation and are liable to confiscati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... penalty on the respondents under Section 117 was not justified. I find that the impugned order cannot be assailed for vacating the penalty on the respondents in the facts of the case. In the circumstances, the impugned order to the extent it concerned confiscation of the container and imposing penalty on the respondents is sustained and the appeal filed by Revenue dismissed. (Dictated and pronoun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
