9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (9) TMI 145X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... barge was brought into the Indian Customs waters without declaring it in the Import Manifest. The same was confiscated and released. The Master of the vessel, Shri Chidzhavadze, a Georgian, in his statement to the Superintendent of Customs Preventive) admitted the mistake and stated that the tug took over the Barge AL-JABER 30 from Sandakan, Malaysia on 13-4-2004 to hand it over to its owner at Abudhabi and they had entered Cochin Port for bunkering. He further stated that it was his first arrival to India and he was not aware of the rules of the country and prayed for taking a lenient view. Shri George Mathew, Managing Partner of M/s. Ancheril Agencies, Steamer Agents for the tug AL-JABER 6 in his statement also admitted that they had comm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion of imposing penalty does not arise in the matter. He further submits that for the venial breach, no penalty should be imposed as held by the High Court of Madras in the case of Haniff Shabbir Brothers v. Collector reported in 1997 (96) E.L.T. 27 (Mad.). He also relies on the ruling rendered by the Tribunal in the case of Hari Co. v. Commissioner of Customs, Trichy [2007 (213) E.L.T. 536 (Tri. -Chennai)] wherein the penalty imposed on Steamer Agent for non-declaration of goods due to negligence was set aside as there was no intention on the part of the appellant to remove the goods/cargo to Indian Port for sale in the local market. The learned Counsel also relies on the ruling of the Apex Court in the case of Hindustan St ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , 1962 and hence imposed a penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/-. I have considered the submissions. The learned Commissioner has accepted the fact of their bona fide mistake about the entry of the Barge for not imposing the redemption fine. There was difficulty in parking the Barge, the barge was brought into the Indian Customs water at the instructions of the Controller of Cochin Port. This fact is on the record. The Commissioner has not accepted this fact for imposing penalty but has accepted it for not confiscating the goods and not levying Redemption fine. The Apex Court in the case of Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. State of Orissa reported in 1978 (2) E.L.T J159 (S.C.) has held that when a technical or a venial breach of law has been committed, th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
