9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (3) TMI 24X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rned that is the responsibility of the foreign supplier and the shipping line has nothing to do with it. As regards the issue of fresh bills of lading, it is true that new numbers and dates should have been given for the fresh bills of lading. However, this is only technical error and does not reflect any fraudulent intention. In any case section 111(f) deals with a situation where there is a deliberate misdeclaration in the import manifest filed which is not the case herein. Therefore, the provisions of the said section has no application whatsoever in the facts of the present case. 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se, 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 that they would not be clearing the consignments and gave no objection certificate for getting the IGM amended. Consequently, the appellant filed an application for amending the IGM vide application dated 10/01/2012. The adjudicating authority allowed the amendment as requested on payment of fine and penalty as mentioned above, only on the ground that while issuing the fresh bills of ladi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 Section 32, other than goods inadvertently unloaded but included in the record kept under sub-section (2) of Section 45. It is not the case of department that the goods have been unloaded in contravention of provisions of Section 32 and therefore, the provisions of Section 111(f) and 111(g) do not apply at all to the facts of the case. Consequently, there is no liability to confiscation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stics 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 lower authorities and submits that the issue of a fresh bills of lading and invoices giving the same numbers and dates of the old bills of lading and invoices in wrong and therefore, the appellant is liable to penalty and the goods liable to confiscation. 5. I have carefully considered the submissions made by both the sides. 6. In the facts of the case before me, it is clear that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
