9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (1) TMI 119X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the shed appraiser (export) in docks for examination and it is only after examination of the goods that an LEO is passed. In this case, the impugned order records the fact that the Appellant was at all times aware that the vessel was to sale out of India on 9th October, 2009 and, therefore, ought to have ensured that the goods are examined before they are loaded on to the foreign going vessel. The alternate submission in respect of absence mens rea was also considered by the Tribunal and on interpretation of Section 114 of the Act recorded a prima facie finding that there is no requirement of mens rea under Section 114 of the Act. The reliance upon the admission of an appeal by this Court from an order of the Tribunal at the final heari ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for the Tribunal to direct the Appellant to predeposit the 25% of the penalty imposed by the Respondent No.2 i.e. ₹ 1.75 lakhs instead of granting complete waiver from predeposit of the entire penalty imposed on the Appellants, as they did not have any knowledge as regards the loading of the Containers on the vessel. (ii) Was it correct to have imposed a penalty on the CHA under Section 114(iii) of the Customs Act, 1962 when the facts of the case do not attract any penalty on the CHA under Section 114(iii) of the Customs Act, 1962. (iii) Was it proper and correct for the CESTAT, Mumbai being the final fact finding authority under the Act to have suomoto cast/lay down an obligation on the CHA to perform an impossible duty ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the goods covered by the Shipping Bills go into the Docks, the CHA has no access to it. Therefore, it could not have obtained the LEO. Besides, in the present case, absence of mens rea is pleaded as the Appellant had not instructed the shipping line to load the goods without obtaining the LEO. It is further submitted that identical issues were finally disposed of by the Tribunal imposing penalty upon the CHA but the same have on challenge been admitted by this Court. Therefore, it is submitted that the impugned order should have dispensed with the predeposit of penalty for the purposes of hearing the appeal on merits. 6. An appeal from an order of an Adjudicating Authority to the Tribunal under the Act is not an absolute right of appeal. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Appellant was at all times aware that the vessel was to sale out of India on 9th October, 2009 and, therefore, ought to have ensured that the goods are examined before they are loaded on to the foreign going vessel. The alternate submission in respect of absence mens rea was also considered by the Tribunal and on interpretation of Section 114 of the Act recorded a prima facie finding that there is no requirement of mens rea under Section 114 of the Act. The reliance upon the admission of an appeal by this Court from an order of the Tribunal at the final hearing for purposes of dispensing with predeposit is inappropriate. In fact, the Tribunal had held against the Appellant on a similar facts and, therefore, this itself would warrant a d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
