9911796707
TMI Blog1983 (6) TMI 195X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Steamer Agents carried 105 cases of auto replacing parts and it discharged the entire cargo at the Calcutta Port on 11-11-1974. On the basis of the Appraisement Survey held 16 months after the landing, a show cause notice was issued to the appellants calling upon them as to why they should not pay penalty for the shortages found under Section 116 of the Customs Act, 1962. The Deputy Collector of Customs, after considering the reply imposed a penalty of ₹ 47,217.93 P. Feeling aggrieved, the appellants preferred an appeal before the Appellate Collector unsuccessfully. Thereafter, they filed a Revision Application before the Central Government which stood statutorily transferred to this Tribunal. Hence this appeal. 3. This appea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l contentions, the short point that falls for consideration is whether the orders passed by the Deputy Collector and confirmed by the Appellate Collector are to be interfered with or not. 6. There is no dispute that the vessel discharged the cargo on 11-11-1974. After the discharge, the cargo remained in the custody of the Port Authorities who are the authorised agents of the Customs. Neither the consignee nor the Clearing Agents sought any agents survey even though the goods landed under a qualified receipt. For over 16 months, the goods remained in the docks. As has been stated earlier, the cases contained auto replacement parts. It may not be difficult to pilfer the parts from any case when they were lying in the docks. The Appraisem ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... but they slept over the matter for over 16 months. In the circumstances, the Appellate Collector was not justified in holding that the shortages took place before the landing of the cargo from the vessel. 7. The Calcutta High Court considered the Public Notice No. 132, dated 10-12-1973 and had held that if the survey had not been conducted immediately after the discharge of the goods from the vessel, the Steamer Agents cannot be made liable to pay penalty for the shortages detected subsequently by its judgment in matter No. 1561/81, dated 2-2-1983. The contention raised by Shri Chatterjee that the Steamer Agents ought to have produced certificate contemplated by Article 3 of the Rules relating to Bill of Lading, does not in any way aff ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
