9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (9) TMI 1067X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it was closed - Held thst: - it is an admitted fact that the containers were loaded on the vessel on 25th December 2006 and the same sailed on 25th December 2006 itself. In the circumstances, CHA could not have remained present on the day of holiday. CHA had no control over the loading of the goods on the vessel on that day. In the fact situation, it cannot be said that CHA has committed breach o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... <![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]> /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed Counsel appearing for the Respondents. 3 The factual aspect not in dispute is that the shipping line M/s. Soham Logistics Pvt. Ltd. is charged for loading containers on vessel sailed on 25th December 2006 without there being Let Exporter Order (LEO). According to the Revenue CHA was expected to prevent the loading on the vessels on 25 th December, 2006. 4 Per contra Learned Counsel for t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6 In the above circumstances, the Tribunal was perfectly justified in holding that the CHA was not having any control after the goods were gated in, as such CHA could not have been held liable especially when the exporter has already been exonerated. This view is in consonance with the view taken by this Court in Appeal No.24 of 2010 in the matter of The Commissioner of Customs (Export) Vs. M/s. K ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
