9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (7) TMI 719X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on 28-3-2009 from Silk Air, Coimbatore, by producing his passport. However, he did not come to take delivery of goods till 30-3-2009. Hence, the officers of DRI, Coimbatore had opened and examined the consignment under a mahazar on 31-3-2009. It was found to contain digital video cameras of different brands with other trade goods. It was also found that the clothes were packed inside the said baggage a top layer to conceal the other items in trade quantities. The said packages did not contain any labels excepting the AWB No. written on them and a sticker of M/s. Silk Air. Shri Sooravali Raju did not respond to the summons issued by the officers of DRI, Coimbatore, hence the goods brought under said AWB were seized by DRI under the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962, on 8-4-2009. 2.1 On 17-4-2009, Shri Deen Mohamad, the IE code holder of M/s. Pioneer Impex approached DRI, Coimbatore with the claim of ownership of the seized goods by stating that the consignment was mis-sent to Coimbatore instead of his company name M/s. Pioneer Impex, Chennai, through Chennai Airport. The officers of DRI have recorded his statements on 17-4-2009 and a further statement on 18-4-2009. 2.2&emsp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... approach the Customs Authorities for effecting clearance of the unaccompanied baggage and has not surfaced till date. It further finds that the said Sooravali Raju appeared through his advocate in the proceedings before the Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, Coimbatore conducted for grant of extension of time-limit for issue of Show Cause Notice. The lower authority concludes that the fact that Sooravali Raju did not respond to the investigation and distanced himself from the goods and authorities itself showed that Shri Sooravali Raju knowingly smuggled the foreign goods in commercial quantities seized from unaccompanied baggage or allowed his name for use in the said smuggling and therefore cannot escape himself by saying that he has nothing to do with the consignment. It is submitted that the claim of the applicant is that he is the owner of the goods covered under Airway Bill No. 62911425481 dated 27-3-2009 and that the said goods have been wrongly dispatched by the Freight Forwarders in the name of Sooravali Raju as Personal Effects. The statement recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962, from the partner of the applicant is to the same effect. Documentary ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ated 27-3-2009 was wrongly dispatched in the name of Sooravali Raju as his personal effects. When the Freight Forwarders discovered the mistake, he has come forward to seek for an amendment of the Airway Bill and Manifest with the carrier. If the amendment had been carried out at the first instance, the Airway Bill above referred would have reflected in the name of the Applicant as the consignee, name of M/s. Pawa Brothers Trading Private Limited, Singapore as a consignor and the goods as Electronic Goods instead of Sooravali Raju and personal effects respectively. 4.4 The applicant says and submits that the findings at paragraph 4.8 of Order-in-Appeal are clearly erroneous. If at all, the investigative Department had any doubts about the transaction between the applicant and M/s. Pawa Brothers Trading Private Limited, Singapore, it could have caused necessary verification with the said M/s. Pawa Brothers Trading Private Limited, Singapore. This was not done. 4.5 The interpretation of the appellate authorities on the Circulars Nos. 13 and 44 of 2005 and also the case laws cited is perverse and betrays a clear lack of knowledge of the said authorities nor application of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent to Coimbatore instead of sending the same to their company at Chennai and goods belong to them, that Shri Sooravali Raju has not surfaced till date and he has stated through his advocate before Commissioner of Customs that he has nothing to do with the goods under seizure, that, department never conducted overseas investigation if they had doubt about their claim of ownership of goods that Circular Nos. 13 and 44 of 2005 would put forth that all amendments whether minor or major in IGM are to be allowed as a matter of course and that the Public Notice No. 14/2008 dated 4-2-2008 issued by Commissioner of Customs Nhava Sheva is misconceived as the same has no relevance to the claim for an amendment in terms of Section 30(3) of the Customs Act, 1962. 9. Government observes that an unaccompanied baggage covered by AWB No. 629-1142 5481 was booked on 21-3-2009 at Singapore by one Shri Sooravali Raju, with the declaration of its contents as 'personal effects'. Shri Sooravali Raju obtained the delivery order on 28-3-2009 from Silk Air, Coimbatore but did not take the delivery of the goods. The officers of DRI, Coimbatore, gathered an intelligence that electronic goods and other ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erated that their stand was made very clear in the statement by their manager, Shri L. Raveendran on 11-8-2009 and for the shake of convenience, they have maintained the following points. * The registered Regulated Cargo Agents (RCAs) at Singapore, authorized by M/s. Silk Air are issuing AWBs electronically on receipt of consignment for transportation from Singapore to other countries through Silk Air; * The registered RCAs used to give AWB of Silk Air to their co-loaders who also book consignments; * After issuing AWB on receipt of consignment either the RCAs or the co-loaders bring the consignment to acceptance counter at Singapore with export permit form and the AWB; * After Customs clearance and security check at Singapore airport, the consignment is handed over to Silk Air for transportation to the destination; * The AWB No. 62911425481 was released by M/s. Union Air Freight, the registered RCA to their co-loader M/s. Tri Royal Forwarding (S) Pvt. Ltd., for booking a consignment from the Shipper ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al of the cargo at destination, the consignee takes possession or requests delivery of the cargo; * All the carriers are governed by the Rules framed by the International Air Transport Association. As per the said TACT Rules framed by them they cannot entertain the request of M/s. Tri Royal Forwarding (S) Pte. Ltd., for the amendment in the AWB No. 62911425481 as only the shipper can request for such amendments in writing. * The Shipper Shri Sooravali Raju did not make any request for the amendment in the AWB and in fact he came to their office in person and obtained the delivery order for the clearance of cargo booked by him at Singapore in his favour in India under the above AWB No. 62911425481. * In accordance with the provisions of TACT Rules only the shipper has the right over the cargo booked by him at Singapore in his favour in India; * They admit that the three consignments under AWB No. 62911425481 booked on 21-3-2006, and 62911425540, 62911425525 on 27-3-2009 with a declaration 'personal effects' were found to contain not pers ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... B filed by them was accurate and complete and requires no changes or modification. The above averments clearly negates the claim of the applicants that the mistake was committed by the staff of M/s. Tri Royal Forwarding (S) Pte. Ltd., and clearly proves that the claim of applicants as 'false'. The carrier has aptly cited that as per the Air Cargo Tariff Manual of IATA-Rule 2.6.1, a shipper can make a request for any amendment in AWB before the consignee takes possession or requested for delivery of goods. The Airliner had declined the request of M/s. Tri Royal Forwarding (S) Pte. Ltd., for the amendment in the impugned AWB by citing TACT Rules framed by International Air Transport Association. What is more important here is 3 consignments booked by M/s. Tri Royal Forwarding (S) Pte. Ltd., during March 2009 were found to contain goods other than what were declared and were seized by the DRI/Customs authorities towards attempt to smuggle. The carriers have also stated that there was no AWB issued to M/s. Pawa Brothers Trading Pte. Ltd., Singapore either on 21-3-2009 or any day up to 27-3-2009 for the transportation of cargo from Singapore to Coimbatore through Silk Air and that M/s. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or amendment in the IGM in view of position explained above. 9.4 Government notes that the shipper of goods Shri Sooravali Raju never stated before DRI Officers that it is case of mis-sent goods. He never associated with the investigation and did not attend hearings before adjudicating authority as well as appellate authority. The applicants came forward to claim the goods on 17-4-2009 after the goods were seized by DRI on 8-4-2009. The goods were booked from Singapore on 21-3-2009 and if it was case of mixing up the cargo or mis-sent Cargo, the applicant could have not remained silent for 26 days. Therefore, commissioner (Appeals) has rightly noticed the fraudulent intention in this case. 9.5 Regarding applicant contention that no overseas inquiry was conducted, it is observed that the partner of the applicant firm had failed to justify the bona fides of his business transactions with M/s. Pawa Brothers, Singapore as the replies to the questions by DRI, his answers were vague and evasive, that he was unable to tell the name of the persons with whom he contacted at Singapore, and even the names of friends and relatives as claimed by him. Even he was not sure whether the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... In this case carries M/s. Silk Air has sticked to the correctness of IGM filed by them and they did not agree with request of M/s. Tri Royal Forwarding (S) Pte. Ltd., to amend the AWB No. 62911425481. The Harmonious reading of subsection (2) and (3) of Section 30 makes it clear that only person-in-charge of carrier can seek amendment in IGM and if the proper officer is satisfied, he can allow such amendment provided there was no fraudulent intention. The provisions of Section 30(3) has been further clarified by the Board vide Circular No. 13/2005, dated 11-3-2005 and Circular No. 44/2005-Cus., dated 24-11-2005. Vide Circular No. 44/2005-Cus., dated 24-11-2005, it has been clarified that cases involving fraudulent intention or substantial revenue implication arising from the amendment requires adjudication. The above said circular, makes it clear that amendment may be allowed in all case by following guidelines prescribed in the said circulars except in cases of fraudulent intentions. It may not be out of place or context to cite the following observation of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the judgment in the case of J.B. Trading Corporation v. Union of India [1990 (45) E.L.T. 9 ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
