9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (12) TMI 175X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... M/s. D.P. Logistics Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai, the CHA. The appellant filed a shipping bill No. 7980986, dated 23-9-2012 for the shipment of a container, consisting of coriander seeds valued at Rs. 8,21,540/-. The shipping bill was processed and 'Let Export Order' was given only on 26-12-2009 by the proper officer of the Customs. In the meanwhile, the vessel, M.V. Olympia sailed on 25-12-2009 even before the LEO was issued. Accordingly, a show cause notice was issued alleging violation of Section 40 and Section 51 of the Customs Act, 1962 and also liability to confiscation of the goods under Section 113(g) and to impose penalty under Section 114(iii) ibid. The case was adjudicated and penalty of Rs. 50,000/- was imposed on the exporter and a penal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act and consequently, the appellant are liable to penalty under Section 114(iii) ibid. 5. I have carefully considered the rival submissions. 5.1 There is no dispute regarding the fact that the vessel has sailed on 25-12-2009 whereas the LEO was given only on 26-12-2009. As per the provisions of Section 113(g) "any goods loaded or attempted to be loaded on any conveyance, or water-borne, or attempted to be water-borne for being loaded on any vessel, the eventual destination of which is a place outside India, without the permission of the "proper officer" of the Customs is liable to confiscation. In the case before me, the goods have been loaded and the vessel has sailed before the LEO was given by the Customs officer and, therefore, the go ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m the proper officer of Customs, he is liable for the consequences. Whoever is found to have committed something paving the way for shipment of goods with LEO or to have omitted to do anything to ensure compliance with requirement of Section 51 of the Act must be held to have rendered the goods liable to confiscation. In the case before me, both the exporter and the CHA failed in the responsibility to comply with the requirement of Section 51 of the Customs Act, 1961 and therefore, they are liable to penalty under Section 114(iii) of the Customs Act. Thus the appellant has not made out a case for complete waiver of the pre-deposit of the penalties adjudged against them. 6. Accordingly, I direct the appellant to make a pre-deposit of 25% ea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
