9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (1) TMI 1172X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Dixit For the Respondent: Shri R. Nagar, A.R. JUDGEMENT Per: Mr. B.S.V. Murthy; Appellant M/s. Saurashtra Cement Ltd. (SCL) is engaged in the manufacture of cement and cement clinker and filed a shipping bill on 21.9.10 for export of 600 MT of cement under DEPB for export to IRRA. The shipping bill was assessed on 22.9.10 and the loading was started under the supervisor of SCL and the other persons concerned. By the time 70 MT of cement had been loaded, the officers of Customs came and stopped the loading on the ground that let export order had not been given and therefore loading was improper. On this ground proceedings were proposed to be initiated. But the appellant company and others concerned waived issue of show cause ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion only if the vessel is used for smuggling of the goods with the knowledge of the owner and if the owner is able to show that he had no knowledge or intention to smuggle, a penalty on the owner and confiscation of the vessel is not called for. In this case no doubt around 10% of the goods was loaded in the vessel but even the Commissioner himself has accepted that what happened appears to be bonafide mistake and therefore he is taking a lenient view. Once it is accepted that what has happened is a bonafide mistake, it cannot be said that the vessel was used in smuggling with the knowledge of the owner. Under these circumstances, the vessel cannot be said to be liable to confiscation and therefore the confiscation of the vessel is not sust ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ble to confiscation, the agent of the shipping line cannot be absolved of any omissions in this case. The agent of the shipping line is responsible for issue of bills of lading of the goods and it is his responsibility to ensure that the goods are loaded after proper procedures are followed. That being the position, the agent of the shipping line is liable to penalty. 5. Having dealt with all the issues, the question that remains to be considered is whether the Commissioner who stated that he would like to be lenient in this case since he has not found any malafide intention was really very lenient. In my view the Commissioner has been quite harsh in deciding the quantum of penalty. Once it is concluded that omission is procedural in natu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
