9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (6) TMI 990X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or the Petitioner : Shri V.N. Ansurkar, Advocate And Shri Mayur Shroff, Advocate, For the Respondent : Shri Y.D. Banga, Authorised Representative (JCDR) ORDER In adjudication of a show-cause notice, the Commissioner of Customs (Export) ordered confiscation of the goods covered by shipping bill dated 29.1.2007 under Section 113(g) of the Customs Act and allowed option to the exporter to redeem t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e was placed on the Supreme Court's judgment in Hindustan Steel Ltd. vs. State of Orissa 1978 (2) ELT (J159) (SC). On this basis, the counsel prayed for vacating the fine and penalties. The learned JCDR reiterated the findings of the Commissioner. 3. After considering the submissions, I find that the Tribunal's Larger Bench decision cited by the counsel is squarely applicable to this case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e consignment to the CHA and the latter filed the shipping bill on 29.1.2007. The CHA handed over the goods to the shipping line without completing the customs procedure. The shipping line loaded the goods in the vessel without receipt of documentary evidence of customs clearance and the vessel sailed on 30.1.2007. Section 51 of the Act provides that the proper officer of customs may make an order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ds liable to confiscation, is also evident from the records. The only question which remains is whether the quanta of penalties imposed on the appellants are fair and reasonable. In my view, they are not. In the facts and circumstances of this case, I reduce the quantum of penalty on the shipping line to Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only) and the penalties on the exporter and the CHA to Rs. 1, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
