9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (5) TMI 326X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... formalities had been completed and without collecting the Shipping Bill had permitted loading of the goods. Under Section 40 of the Customs Act, 1962 the responsibility has been cast on the person in charge of the conveyance to ensure that the goods are not loaded on the vessel unless shipping bill duly passed by the proper officer has been handed over to him by the exporter. Further under Section 34 of the Customs Act, 1962 the loading of the goods is done under the supervision of the proper officer of customs. The Appellant who is the exporter has no control over the goods or their loading once the goods are carted into the port and the responsibility to ensure that that the goods are not loaded on the vessel before the Shipping Bill ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt Recycling System . The export goods had been factory stuffed under Central Excise supervision. The factory stuffed container was brought to port on 1-10-2008 where it was verified by the Preventive officer of customs and the same was allowed to be taken to Shipping Line's container yard. 2.1 The Shipping Bill was assessed by the proper officer of Customs who passed the Let Export Order under Section 51 of the Customs Act 1962 on 10-10-2008. The Shipping Line through their agents, Forbes Sea Consortium India Ltd issued to the Appellant a Bill of Lading in respect of the said goods on 10-10-2008 evidencing the receipt of the goods on board the vessel MV Oel Integrity. 2.2 It however transpired that before the passing of the Let ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lakhs on the Shipping Agent. He also imposed a penalty of ₹ 7 lakhs on the CHA and a penalty of ₹ 6 lakhs on the exporter-the present appellant. 3. The present appeal is filed by the exporter against the said imposition of penalty of ₹ 6 lakhs on the following grounds:- (i) Appellant contended that imposing penalty for exporting the goods allegedly removed without obtaining LEO from proper officer of customs is not justified and should be set aside. (ii) Secondly, appellant had hired CHA M/s Sylvester Co. to do the job of preparation of shipping bills etc. The responsibility and liability of appellants ceases as soon as container enters notified Port area and it becomes responsibility of shipping lines for conta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ipping bill duly passed by the proper officer has been handed over to him by the exporter. Further under Section 34 of the Customs Act, 1962 the loading of the goods is done under the supervision of the proper officer of customs. It was therefore the responsibility of the shipping agent (person in charge of conveyance) not to load the goods on the vessel before receiving the duly passed Shipping Bill and it was equally the responsibility of the customs officer under whose supervision the goods were loaded on the vessel to ensure that goods were not loaded without the duly passed shipping Bill. The Appellant who is the exporter has no control over the goods or their loading once the goods are carted into the port and the responsibility to en ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
