9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (9) TMI 1016X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent appellants in this batch of appeals to the fold of law. The case against M/s. Chakiat Shipping Services Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Caravel Shipping Services Pvt. Ltd. was booked by Customs alleging that they had close intimacy to the mis-declaration of the port of discharge. The goods although was destined to Malaysia and also loaded in the vessel bound to that destination shipping bill was made to show the port of discharge as Colombo. This resulted in mis-declaration of description of the destination for which they were penalized by an amount of Rs. 10,000/- each under section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962. 3.1 So far as M/s. Caravel Shipping Services Pvt. Ltd. is concerned, it was brought to the fold of the adjudication by customs authorities noticing that M/s. Ascending Impex, the exporter was only a bubble and non-existent and shipping bill No. 2065190 dated 17.5.2005 was filed for that concern. Similarly, M/s. Chakiat Shipping Services Pvt. Ltd. came into fold when the customs found that the said appellant was also party to the misdeclaration of port of discharge. Learned adjudicating authority has recorded role of M/.s Caravel Shipping Services Pvt. Ltd. in para 5 of his o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y shipping bill No. 2036539 dated 1.4.2005 (are of the past shipping bills appearing in para 25 of the impugned order), he revealed that the destination of the goods was mis-declared. The goods were destined to Malaysia. But the port of discharge was declared as Colombo. Such statement was corroborated from statement of one N. Chandrasekhar, Senior Manager, Operations, M/s. Bengal Tiger Line (India) Pvt. Ltd. Chennai in respect of shipping bill No. 2058991 dated 6.5.2005 (Ref: para 29 of adjudication order). Similar such corroboration came out when Shri H. Gokulkrishnan, Assistant Manager (Operations) of M/s. NYK Line (India) was examined on 27.5.2005 under section 108 of Customs Act, 1962 (Ref. para 28 of adjudication order). 7. With the aforesaid background, penalty of Rs. 10,000/- was imposed on both the appellants under section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962. 8. Shri Derrick representing both the appellants submitted that both of the appellants are innocent and they have no knowledge about the port of discharge. They only arranged shipping of the goods without any involvement in mis-declaration as to the port of discharge. Therefore, section 117 of the Customs Act does not appl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ls to sustain since he had not issued shipping bill. That was issued by CHA. 14. Revenue supports adjudication. 15. Reading of para 15 of the adjudicating order reveals that Krishnan was partner of M/s. Premier Shipping Agency, Chennai which was a freight forwarder. Statement was recorded from him under section 108 of Customs Act,1 962 on 24.5.2005 and 26.5.2005. He stated to have acted on the basis of the liner M/s. Box Trans Shipping Agencies Pvt. Ltd. who required the container to be booked for port Kelang. He also stated to have received a letter from Ascending Impex requesting for switch Bill of Lading and showing the address of consignee as M/s. R&A Enterprises, Colombo. Accordingly, Bill of Lading was issued for that port. Request was made to the counterpart of Colombo to issue Bill of Lading to Port Kelang. His statement also reveals that the containers were loaded into vessels bound for Malaysia. That vessels did not go to Port in Colombo nor any transshipment was made to Colombo and the shipper asked for switch bill of lading. No amendment was intimated to customs about the port of discharge. 16. The smuggling racket of red sanders had a team. Smuggling does not occur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was shipped by M/s. Box Trans Shipping Agencies Pvt. Ltd. and loaded ino the vessel MV Sagar VOY:011. Such cargo was delivered at the port of discharge Kelang in Malaysia. He also stated that there was contravention of provision of section 41 of the Customs Act since the certificate issued in the EGM was untruthful. The EGM No. 6801 was based on the details given by the liner agents. 19. Similarly, two consignments of red sanders covered by shipping bill No. 2058991 dated 6.5.2005 and 2052145 dated 27.4.2005 were also consigned by M/s. Carvel Shipping Services and M/s. Box Trans Shipping Agencies Pvt. Ltd. had placed order for containers. Both the containers were shipped to the port of discharge in Kelang in Malaysia. The EGM 6873 was based on the details given by the liner agents but that was untruthful. 20. With the aforesaid background, customs found that the vessel operator acted in defiance of law and there was lapse by them for which they were brought to the purview of adjudication. Their defence was called for by show cause notice dated 15.11.2005 The defence led by the appellant did not convince the adjudicating authority for which these two appellants were imposed penalt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... har, Senior Manager, Operations of M/s. Bengal tiger Line (India) Pvt. Ltd. discloses the role of the appellants who acted contrary to declaration given to customs in Form No. 66. The materials utilized against these two appellants are the documents relating to the container No. CRXU 2512529 loaded in the vessel MV Sagar VOY 011 and the container No. TRIU 374306 and FSCU 3874077. When these two appellants were exposed to the statements of above two persons who admitted the breach of law in para 29 & 30 of the adjudication order, they did not deny about the shipment of the goods in the respective container meant for delivery in Port Kelang, Malaysia although port of discharge was declared in shipping bills as Colombo. They also did not rule out filing of the EGM with the description of the contents in the shipping bills. This clearly shows that the principles of cavet amptor makes the vessel operator liable for their conscious knowledge about the goods shipper, description and nature thereof, consignor and the consignee, as well as contents of the shipping bill misdeclaring port of discharge. Col. 6 of Form 66 which is EGM describes, shipping bill number. Therefore, the vessel opera ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
