9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (5) TMI 607X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... amely, Indian Organic Cotton through their CHA M/s. Al Freight International Pvt. Ltd., and the FOB value was declared at ₹ 1,16,82,808/- 3. M/s. Regional Container Line, Mumbai, the shipping Line loaded the container on vessel MV Jitra Bhum, which sailed from Nhava Sheva Port on 05/10/2007 whereas the Let Export Order (LEO) for the goods was granted by the proper officer of Customs on 06/10/2007. Therefore a show-caused notice dated 31/01/11 was issued to the appellant/exporter, the Cha and the Shipping Line for violation of the provisions of Sections 40,51,147 of the Customs Act, 1962 asking them why the goods exported should not be held liable to confiscation under Section 113(g) of the said Customs Act and the Exporter, CHA a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appellant. He relies on the judgment of this Tribunal in the case of Emirates Shipping Agencies (I) Pvt. Ltd., vs. CC (Export), Nhava Sheva, reported in 2009 (243) ELT 689 (Tri-Mum.) and Mohini Organics Pvt. Ltd., vs. CC (Export) Nhava Sheva, reported in 2009 (240) ELT 589 (Tri-Mumbai) and the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CC(Export) Kusters Calico Machinery Ltd., reported in 2010 (257) ELT 368 (Bom) in support of his above contention. Accordingly, he pleads for waiver of pre-deposit of he penalty adjudged against the appellant/exporter. 5. The Ld. AR appearing for the Revenue on the other hand contends that in the instant case the appellant had filed the shipping bill only on 06/10/2007 whereas the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l submissions. 6.1 There is no dispute about the fact that in the instant case the shipping bill was filed on 06/10/2007 whereas the vessel had left on 05/10/2007 carrying the goods covered by the shipping bill, before the shipping bill was filed and before the let export order could be given. In view of the above, the goods are liable to confiscation under Section 113 (g) of the Customs Act which says that any goods loaded or attempted to be loaded on any conveyance or water borne or attempted to be water-borne for being loaded on any vessel the eventual destination, which is a place outside India, without the permission of the proper officer is liable to confiscation . In the instant case the goods have been loaded and the vessel had ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ein had filed a shipping bill and thereafter, the scheduled date of berthing and sailing of the ship was advanced which the appellant did not know. In that context it was held that the appellant was not liable to penalty as he was not responsible for sailing of the vessel prior to LEO be given. In the Mohini Organics Pvt. Ltd., case also, the shipping bill was filed on 13/01/2007 and the goods were permitted inside the port and the Gate Customs officer took the shipping bill as well as shipping documents. Thereafter, the CHA forwarded copy of the shipping bill for obtaining let export order. Since 13/01/2007 and 14/01/2007 were holidays let export order was given only on 15/01/2007 where as the vessel sailed with the container on 14/01/2007 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
