9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (4) TMI 1050X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing the remaining goods which were allowed to be redeemed on payment of fine of Rs. 10,00,000 and a penalty of Rs. 10,000 was also imposed on M/S Maersk India Pvt Ltd under section 117 of Customs Act, 1962. Proceedings were initiated against the appellant for shortage in the goods upon examination prior to commencement of auction for failure by the importer to clear the goods within the specified time-frame. It would appear that the ball pens, mechanical pencils and refills that had been imported by M/S Jai Singh Sales Corporation from M/S BMT Distribution Inc, Canada were being proceeded against under section 48 of the Customs Act, 1962 and, in examination conducted on 28 June 2004, the report indicated quantity to conform declaration. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the findings of the adjudicating authority. 4. Duty has been demanded on goods that were allegedly pilfered and the quantificaion of pilferage was taken to be difference between the quantities ascertained from the bill of lading and the actual numbers found during the second round of physical verification. Moreover, there appears to be a substantial difference in weight as declared in the bill of lading and upon actual ascertainment. According to Learned Counsel, the declaration in the bill of lading is never an accurate reflection of true weight. We are unable to accept this submission as the sequence in which containerized cargo is accepted on board is factored upon the weight for proper placement to ensure stability to the vessel durin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... resumption of conformity with the declaration unless asserted otherwise at the time of taking over of custodianship of the cargo. In the absence of such assertion, there is no reason to accept the claim of 'short shipment'. It would therefore, appear that the adjudicating authority has rightly fastened the liability for duty on the pilfered goods on the custodian, who is the appellant in the present proceedings. 7. The goods that were available are not offending goods. There is no allegation that these have been imported contrary to any prohibition under the Customs Act, 1962 or any other law in force. They are yet to be subject to the process of importation prescribed in section 46 of Customs Act, 1962. Consequently, there is no g ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
