TMI Blog2013 (8) TMI 357X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nterest M/s. Adani Enterprise Ltd. Rs.4,89,86,290/- 1. Rs.1,75,00,000/- (u/s 112 (a) of the Customs Act, 1962) 2. Rs.1,75,00,000/- (u/s 114 (ii) of the Customs Act, 1962) 3. Rs.1,50,00,000/- (u/s 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962) At appropriate rate Shri Chandan Prasad Samaiyar -- 1. Rs.10,00,000/- (u/s 112 (b) of the Customs Act, 1962) 2. Rs.10,00,000/- (u/s 114 (ii) of the Customs Act, 1962) 3. Rs.10,00,000/- (u/s 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962) M/s. Jaisu Shipping company Pvt. Ltd. -- 1. Rs.50,00,000/- (u/s 112 (b) of the Customs Act, 1962) 2. Rs.50,00,000/- (u/s 114 (ii) of the Customs Act, 1962) 3. Rs.50,00,000/- (u/s 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962) M/s. Link Enterprises -- 1. Rs.25,00,000/- (u/s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s his submission that M/s. AEL had executed warehousing bond under Section 59 of the Customs Act, 1962 at the time of import and also filed an in-bond bill of entry. It is his submission that the appellant herein had while clearing the HSD (gas oil] for loading it on to the foreign going vessel had raised invoices/shipping bills which were approved by the customs authorities. As a random sample, he would draw our attention to shipping bill No.52202 dated 7.12.06 and submit that they had filed the shipping bills which were approved by the customs authorities for clearance as bonded bunker. He would also draw our attention to the landing certificate issued by the master of the vessel acknowledging the receipt of the said quantity as a bunker ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n of penalties does not arise. 7. Ld. Additional Commissioner (A.R.) on the other hand would draw our attention to the findings recorded by the adjudicating authority. He would submit that the adjudicating authority has recorded a finding that main appellant herein had manipulated the documents to show that the goods have been exported. He would read the findings from paragraph 45.7. He would submit that appellant herein is not able to show how at the same time, supply by barges was being done at sikka port and while the same barge was being utilised by IOC for doing the same work. He would also submit that the adjudicating authority has specifically recorded that the preventive officers who are posted at the ports have stated that the sig ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... toms authorities, which itself is an evidence that the goods have been exported. 9. We have considered the submissions made at length by both sides and perused the records. The entire issue in these stay petitions is that M/s. AEL has not exported HSD (gas oil) which was warehoused without payment of duty and for supply to vessels under foreign run, as a bunker fuel. 10. We find from the records that the appellant M/s. AEL has prim facie demonstrated that the said gas oil has been supplied to the various merchant vessels. As a random sample which was taken up for demonstration in the case of shipping bill No.F 2202 dated 7.12.06, we find that the appellant had filed shipping bill for export of duty free goods ex-bond with the customs auth ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s exported out of India is a correct proposition. Prima facie, we are of the view that the appellant is able to demonstrate that the goods which were cleared from their bonded warehouse in Kandla/Mundra have been loaded on to the foreign going vessel which was their prime responsibility. As regards the claim of the Revenue that export general manifest filed by the foreign going vessel does not indicate the amount quantity of gas oil delivered by the appellant, the issue seems to be an arguable one as the same needs to be appreciated in form of an evidence of landing certificate given by the Master of merchant vessel and filing of export general manifest prima facie, seems the responsibility of the master of the foreign going vessel, whose s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|