9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (4) TMI 660X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Dhaval Shah, Advocate for the Appellant Shri G. Kirupanandan, Superintendent (AR) for the Respondent ORDER The present appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 10-05-2018 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) whereby the Commissioner (Appeals) has rejected the appeal of the appellant and upheld the Order-in-Original confirming the penalty of ₹ 1 Lakh under Section 112 (a) of Customs Act, Penalty of ₹ 1 lakh/- Under Section 114AA and again of ₹ 50,000/- Under Section 116 of the Act. on the appellant who acted as agent of shipping line on behalf of the importer. 2. The brief fact of the case is that M/s Fairdeal Supplies Ltd., Ahmedabad filed a Bill of Entry bearing No. 4078848 dtd. 29.0 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of cement blocks only. After completing the investigation a Show Cause Notice dtd. 04.06.2006 was issued to M/s Fairdeal Supplies Ltd. (Importer) for confiscation of Cement Block and for recovery of duty on it and penal action under Section 112(a), 114AA and 116 of the Customs Act, 1962. The Show Cause Notice was issued to appellant for penal action under Section 112(a), 114AA and 116 of the Customs Act, 1962 and to CHA for penal action under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act. The Adjudicating Authority adjudicated the case vide OIO dtd. 05.05.2017 and imposed the penalty on the Appellant. Aggrieved by the said order, appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), and learned Commissioner (A) upheld the Order-in-Original and re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the Appellant issued a No Objection Letter only to confirm that the container arrived with seals intact and declaring that it had no-objection if any seal No. D87809 affixed to the Container is cut. The Appellant at that time, also believed that the seal mismatched was inadvertent (since the seal number was declared by the shipper). Pertinently, it was necessary for the Appellant to mention the actual seal number in the No Objection Letter since it is the practice to have a confirmation from the shipping line/ agent about the number of seal which is sought to be cut at the ICD. This can never be a contradictory stand taken by the Appellant. 6. He also argued that the adjudicating authority erred in his conclusion relating t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the forgery was not noticed at that time. Thus, inadvertent in issuance of a DO against a forged BL above does not support the finding in the Impugned Order that the Appellant did not carry the container responsibly. 8. He also argued that the penalty proceedings are quasi-criminal proceedings and penalty cannot be imposed in the absence of a finding of men-rea. The Adjudicating authority observed that as the Appellant caused the importer i.e Fairdeal to file a Bill of Entry for aluminium ingots in as much as the line issued two bills of lading, one showing the goods imported as aluminium ingots . Accordingly the adjudicating authority contendednthis mis-declaration by the importer was attributable to the Appellant issuing two bills o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6(Mad.) (ii) Caravel Logistics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Joint Secretary (RA) 2013 (293) ELT 342 (Mad.) (iii) Sanco Trans Ltd Vs. CESTAT, Chennai 2017 (350) ELT 521 (Mad.) 12. We have considered the submissions made by both the sides and perused the records and the facts and circumstances of the case. We find that in the impugned matter involvement of the Appellant in detail explained by the original adjudicating authority in his order in para 30.1 as under: I have perused both the bills of lading, one submitted by the importer and another submitted by the shipping line. I find that both the bills of lading dated 31.12.2015 are shown to have been issued by Emirates Shipping Lines DMCEST at China and both bear the same No. EPIRCHNXNG13 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m the sequence of event that this is an afterthought by M/s Emirates Shipping Agencies (India) Pvt. Ltd., they had contradicted not only with M/s Fairdeal but also whit their Chines counterpart i.e Emirates Shipping line DMCEST. The contention of the shipping line that the seal was intact is not tenable as not only there was mismatch in the container seal number it is also on record that the seal put by the inspection agency in China i.e CCICTJ112286 was also missing. I observe that safe carriage and transportation of goods from the consigner to consignee is the basic responsibility of the shipping line and it is only on the basis of delivery order issued by the shipping line that the consignee can take delivery of goods at the port of dest ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
