9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (3) TMI 604X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nding local IGMs as old original completely pre-mutilated woolen rags while on examination they were found to be old and used non-mutilated garments. The appellant filed the said IGMs in respect of the said two containers. Initially, the IGMs were filed in the name of M/s. Simer International and M/s. Sujata International but later on the appellant issued delivery orders to M/s. Rainbow Products without applying to the Customs ICD-Tughlakabad Delhi for necessary amendments to the IGMs. The appellant also issued, no objection certificates dated 22.2.2007 (page 51 and 52 of appeal papers) for amendment of the IGMs addressed to the Dy. Commissioner (Customs) and gave it to M/s. Rainbow products without verifying the genuineness of M/s. Rainbow ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... J 75: 2013 AIR (Madras) 85 to advance the proposition that in case of a full container load with seals intact the vessel owner shall not be held responsible for any short landing or be made liable to penalty. 3. Ld. DR on the other hand contended that (i) the appellant issued delivery order in the name of Rainbow products which was not the original consignee and it did so without informing Customs to amend the IGM (ii) Being a shipping agent, it was well aware of the risks involved in changing the names of consignee and the important requirement of bringing it to the notice of Customs with a request to amend the IGM and thus, the penalty was rightly imposed. 4. We have considered the contentions of both sides. 5. It is an admitted fact t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en to it by so-called Rainbow Products signed by one Amit whose signature on the said letter differ from the signature of Amit on the letters dated 22/2/2007 addressed to Deputy Commissioner of Custom on which Amit signed under the word "Received" (meaning he received those letters). Thus, the appellant is clearly covered with the scope of section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 inviting penalty thereunder. The judgments cited by the appellant do not come to its rescue because the penalty was not imposed because of the mis-declaration of the impugned goods but for the acts of omission and commission (in respect of the impugned goods) as detailed and analysed above. In the circumstances, we do not find any such infirmity in the impugned order a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
