9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (1) TMI 419X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... A. Apparels. The holder of the Bill of Lading, i.e., shipper was always entitled to make endorsement on the document of title in favour of the new purchaser during transit of the goods. Thus, shipping line including the present appellant (its agent) have erred in issuing the second Bill of Lading after canceling the first, once the goods are in transit. In this view of the mater, I uphold the confiscation. However, as the shipping agent has acted bona fidely at the request of the shipper, it is the case of minor infraction of law. - . Accordingly, I reduce the redemption fine to 2 lakhs and penalty imposed under Section 112(a) is reduced to 25,000/- (Rupees twenty-five thousand only). - Decided partly in favor of appellant. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... M/s. Mushtaq Trading Company, Shop No. 4, Plot No. 93, Gyan Sampada High School, Mankhurd Link Road, Shivaji Nagar, Govandi, Mumbai - 43. The Shipping Agency sought amendment to the following effect :- Name of the Consignee : M/s. R.A. Apparels, 59, Ponappa Street, Purasawalkam, Chennai - 600084. Further, the appellant requested for personal hearing without issue of SCN. In the course of hearing, the shipper of the goods M/s. Hyson Trading Inc., USA vide letter dated 8-6-2011 communicated that initially they sold one unit of used Crane to M/s. Mushtaq Trading in Sept, 2010 and thereafter shipped the crane. However, as the remittance was not received by them as per agreed terms even after 10 months, the said crane was resold by them to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. It was further observed that since the importer in this case is R.A. Apparels and their name is not manifested as consignee, the cargo had acquired the status of an un-manifested cargo. It was further observed that the request for amendment is made after grant of the Entry Inward to the vessel, in contravention of Section 30 of the Customs Act, making the goods liable for confiscation under Section 111(f) and 111(g). Accordingly, the appellant was held liable to penalty imposed under Section 112(a). The Commissioner further ordered that the goods be confiscated valued at ₹ 1,17,50,715/-, being the declared value, redeemable on payment of redemption fine of ₹ 5 lakhs and further penalty of ₹ 1 lakh was imposed on the app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t there was no fraudulent intention, he may permit it to be amended or supplemented. Hence the need for adjudication will arise only in cases where there are major amendments involving fraudulent intention or substantial revenue implication arising from the amendments. Further it is possible that in certain special situations such as mother/daughter vessel operation for lighterage on account shortage of draft, congestion of port, natural calamity, the final quantity of goods covered by the IGM would be known only after completion of such lighterage operation, requiring amendment in quantity originally declared at the time of filing IGM. These exceptional situations need to be taken care so that penal action is not initiated mechanically in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e documents were produced, as recorded by the Commissioner, the confiscation of consignment and further imposition of penalty is bad. 5. The learned AR states that once the Bill of Lading has been issued, the shipper cannot issue another Bill of Lading. This is the gross violation on part of the shipping line, of which the appellant is an agent. Accordingly, he Supports the impugned order and prays for dismissal of the appeal. 6. Having considered the rival contentions, I find that the only violation in the facts and circumstances is that shipping line in good faith and at the request of the shipper, have erred in canceling the original Bill of Lading and have issued a fresh Bill of Lading in favour of M/s. R.A. Apparels. The ho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
