9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (3) TMI 24X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n imposed on M/s. Shaan Marine Services Pvt. Ltd., the agent of shipping line and the goods imported have been confiscated under the provisions of Sections 111 (f) and 111 (g) of the Customs Act with an option to redeem the same on payment of fine of Rs. 6,08,000/- and Rs. 25,82,000/- in lieu of confiscation. Aggrieved of the same, the appellant is before me. 2. The facts relating to the case, briefly are as follows: 2.1 The appellant is a shipping agent, filed an IGM No. 2027597 dated 03/01/2012. One of the importers, namely, M/s. Indison Agro Foods Ltd., filed twenty bills of entry dated 06/01/2012 for import of consignments covered by the above IGM. However, vide letters dated 11.01.2012 and 13/02/2012, they intimated the shipping line ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nder Section 111(f) & 111(g) of the Customs Act would not arise at all as the said provisions do not mandate confiscation in the facts of the case. Section 111(f) envisages confiscation only when any dutiable or prohibited goods required to be mentioned under the regulations in an import manifest or import report, are not so mentioned. In the present case it is not the case of department that the IGM as originally filed and sought to be amended subsequently did not contain the details of the consignees. At the time of filing of the original IGM, the declaration made in the IGM was correct and true. Similarly Section 111(g) applies to any dutiable or prohibited goods which are unloaded from a conveyance in contravention of the provisions of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dentical situation concerning the amendment to IGM was considered and it was held that when an application for amendment in IGM is made, the goods are not liable to confiscation under Section 111(f) and 111(g) of the Customs Act and consequently no penalty is imposable. The same ratio was followed in Laxmi Saw Mill vs. CC, Tuticorin - 2008 (224) ELT 312 (Tri-Chennai) and in Seahawk Logistics Pvt. Ltd. vs. CC (Import) Nhava Sheva - 2009 (247) ELT 527 (tri- Mumbai) . Accordingly, he pleads for setting aside the confiscation along with option for redemption and also penalties on the shipping agent in the impugned orders. 4. The learned Assistant Commissioner (AR) appearing for the Revenue on the other hand reiterates the findings of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Similarly, the goods were not sought to be unloaded in contravention in the IGM. Therefore, the provisions of Section 111(g) are also not attracted. Since there was no fraudulent intention whatsoever and the applicant/appellant had made application for amendment to the IGM mentioning about the facts in its entirety, the said application for amendment should have been allowed by the proper officer in terms of the powers conferred on him. There was no warrant to hold the good liable to confiscation and impose any penalty. In these circumstances, I find that the impugned orders are unsustainable in law. Accordingly, I set aside the same and allow the appeals with consequential relief, if any, in accordance with law.
(Dictated in Court) X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
