9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (12) TMI 516X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Respondent. [Order]. 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 Contain ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the following decisions. (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 imposed on the respondents as the or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 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 confiscation, the package and any other goods con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 17 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 pronounced in open court) - - TaxTMI - TMITax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
