9911796707
TMI Blog1984 (10) TMI 234X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ith the show cause notice to account for the shortlanding of certain quantity of lubricating oil and failing which to pay penalty of ₹ 25,851.47 which is equivalent to the duty payable on the shortage. Since the appellant did not show any cause, the Dy. Collector of Customs, Bombay imposed a penalty of ₹ 25,851.47. Feeling aggrieved, the appellants preferred an appeal before the Appellate Collector. It appears that among other things the appellants contend that they were not agents of the ship owners in respect of the general cargo and they were the agents for the ships stores only and therefore, penalty cannot be imposed on them for short delivery. It was also contended before the Appellate Collector that the consignee Indian O ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed. 4. Shri Krishna Kumar for the Respondent Collector however urged that the appellants have not adduced any documentary evidence to show that they were agents only in respect of ships stores and not for the general cargo and therefore, the appellants cannot be heard to say that they are not liable for the penalty if the department is able to establish that the ship had failed to discharge the entire manifested quantity. Shri Krishna Kumar further contended that any agreement entered into by the ships owners and the Indian Oil Corporation regarding the transport of the cargo from the dock to the storage tank does not absolve the liability of the ship owners or the steamer agents to pay the penalty in respect of the short-landing cargo. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntended by Shri Krishna Kumar that storage at Trombay was the place of destination for the discharge of the cargo in question. Therefore, the person in charge of the vessel had to discharge the cargo at the storage tanks and if there had been discharge of the cargo at any other place that discharge will not be a valid discharge and as such the steamer agents cannot be heard to say that the consignee had accepted the discharge of the entire quantity and therefore, they cannot be made liable to pay penalty. The contention raised by Shri Krishna Kumar would have been valid if the discharge of the cargo to the consignee at a place other than the destination was without the permission of the Customs authorities. If, however, the Customs authorit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en the appellants cannot be made liable to account for the quantity short delivered at the ultimate destination viz., I.O.C. storage tank at Trombay. The records of the case do not indicate as to the quantity discharged at the dock and the quantity discharged by pipeline at the storage tanks. The records also do not disclose that the shortage complained of was occurred in respect of the quantity discharged at the dock. In the absence of evidence as to the quantity delivered by pipeline and as to the quantity delivered by tank lorries and in the absence of evidence as to the quantity discharged at the dock it would not be possible to come to any definite conclusion as to the shortage and also as to where and when the shortage occurred. The a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
