9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (11) TMI 111X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - 1. All these three appeals are filed against the Order-in-Appeal No. 229/2005 (JNCH), dated 15-7-2005. Since all these three appeal are concerning with the same issue, they are being dispose of by a common order. 2. The relevant facts that arise for consideration are that the appellants herein are Board of Trustees of the Port of Mumbai. The importers in all that three cases imported various items and filed IGM and Bills of Entry. The landing remarks in all the three cases mentioned that the entire quantities have been unloaded from the vessel and custody was handed over to the Mumbai Port Trust. But at the time of delivery, a survey was conducted and it was found that there was shortage of the goods before they were given out of ch ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... alty. Hence, these appeals by the appellants. 4. The learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the provisions of Major Port Trust are very clear and provisions of Section 43 clearly indicate that o responsibility can be attached to the Port Trust after the expiry of seven working days from the date of taking change of the goods. He submits that in all the three cases, the show cause notices were issued beyond a period of seven days. It is also his submission that there is no allegation in the show cause notice that the goods were pilfered whilst in the custody of the appellant. He submits that reliance placed by the Commissioner of Customs is misplaced that they are covered by the Major Port Trust Act, which is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ve filed a writ petition bearing No. 1278 of 2003 before the Hon'ble Bombay High Court challenging the said Public Notice. He submits that the Hon'ble High Court had stayed the said Public Notice being implemented. He draws my attention to the order of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay dated 9-6-2003 and submits that interim relief granted still con t He also submits that since the operation of the Public Notice dated 11-10- 2000 is stayed by the Hon'ble High Court, the Revenue cannot deemed any duty by operating the said notice dated 11-10-2000. 7. Considered the submission made by both sides and perused the re cords. The issue involved in this case is whether as the custodian of the goods i.e. Mumbai Port Trust (appellant) is liable to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ner (Appeals) order of granting the benefit of doubt in absence of establishing the factor of "pilferage" cannot therefore be assailed on the grounds as taken by the Revenue in this appeal. Consequently, Revenue's appeal is required to be dismissed." 8. Further, I find that in respect of the very same appellants and in an identical set of facts, the Division Bench of the Tribunal in its order No. A/308/WZB/2007/C-I dated 20-4-2007 [2007 (216) E.L.T. 47 (Tri. - Mum.)] has held as under : - "8 There are other glaring discrepancies regarding weight and therefore mis-declaration of the cargo by the shippers cannot be ruled out. In view of this, we hold that Revenue has failed to conclusively establish that the goods were pilfered wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
