9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (6) TMI 766X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ds were liable for confiscation and confiscated the goods - It is well settled law in the case of Shiv Kripa Ispat Pvt. Ltd. (supra) that when the goods are not available and are not exported under any bond, redemption fine cannot be imposed - redemption fine set aside. Penalty on CHA - Held that: - CHA has acted on behalf of the exporter and in this case the exporter has not been penalized as it was observed that the exporter has not played any role on board the vessel without LEO - Moreover the CHA had informed the shipping line in advance that the documents will be handed over to the shipping line on 22.05.2008 and the only fault of the shipping line, who loaded the vessel without obtaining LEO from the proper officer - penalty on CHA ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; mso-para-margin-top:0cm; mso-para-margin-right:0cm; mso-para-margin-bottom:10.0pt; mso-para-margin-left:0cm; line-height:115%; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-language:EN-US;} <![endif]--> Shri. Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) Shri Brijesh P., Advocate for the Appellant Shri N.P. Jagasia, Advocate, Shri N.D. George, Advocate , Shri. B.P. Pereira, JDR for the Respondent JUDGEMENT Per : Ashok Jindal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... btaining LEO, rendering the subject goods liable for confiscation. 4. The learned Advocate further submitted that in this case the goods are not exported under any bond and the goods are not available, hence redemption fine cannot be imposed. This issue is squarely covered by the Larger Bench decision in the case of Shiv Kripa Ispat Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise Customs, Nasik - 2009 (235) ELT 623 (Tri. LB) and submitted that redemption fine is not imposable on the appellant (the Exporter). He further submitted that the contention that the export copy of the shipping bill shall be issued after payment of bill is not correct as there is redemption fine payable by the appellant. Hence the impugned order is to be set aside. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on N. Karim Sons (supra) and requested to reduce the penalty to 40% of the penalty levied by the adjudicating authority. 7. On the other hand the learned DR reiterated the impugned order. 8. Heard all the parties. 9. On careful examination of the submissions made by the parties and on perusal of the records, I find that it is an admitted fact that the container was loaded on the vessel without obtaining LEO on 21.05.08 and the vessel was sailed on the same day but the LEO was obtained on 22.5.08. 10. In this case the Commissioner has found that the exporter has not faulted or played any role for loading of the container on board the vessel without LEO. The delay on the part of the ship line which rendered the subject goods ar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct, they are liable for penal action. I do not find any force in the argument advanced by the learned Advocate for the shipping line that there was no intention to contravene the customs laws. In fact the shipping line has contravened the provisions of custom laws. Hence they are liable for penal action. As in the case of N. Karim Sons (supra), this Tribunal has reduced the penalty following the case of CSAV Group Agencies (India) Pvt. Ltd. Union of India (in Customs Appeal No. 57 of 2009 dated on 15.07.2009) as reported in 2009 (248) ELT 165 (Bom.) wherein the Hon ble Bombay High Court considering the case as technical breach, the penalties were reduced to 40% on the shipping line. Following the same, I reduce the penalty to 40% i.e. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
