9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (3) TMI 51X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Writ Petition is taken up for final hearing by consent of the parties. 2. Petitioner 1 is a company which carries on business as Shipping Agents. Petitioner 2 is the Managing Director of petitioner1.Petitioner 1 acted as the Indian Agent of one Evergreen Marine Corporation, Taipei (for convenience, "EMC") carrying on business of carriage of goods by sea. In July, 1999, EMC chartered slot/portion in the vessel M.V. Express Nilgiri for carriage of the consignment into Mumbai. It was consigned to one Blue Star Limited. On 15/7/1999, in anticipation of arrival of vessel M.V. Express Nilgiri, M/s. Patvolk, who were the Main Line Agents of vessel M.V. Express Nilgiri, filed an Import General Manifest (for convenience, "the IGM") No.2214 wher ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t Item No.29 of the IGM has not been cancelled and, in the absence of cancellation, the petitioners were liable for penalty for not discharging the cargo manifested at Item No.29. On 15/4/2002, petitioner 1 addressed a communication to the Deputy Commissioner of Customs seeking cancellation of Item No.29. On 23/8/2002, the Deputy Commissioner of Customs wrote to petitioner 1 confirming cancellation of Item No.29. On 3/10/2002, the Bombay Port Trust took cognizance of the cancellation and issued an amended Outturn Report. 5. In the meantime, petitioner 1 filed an appeal against respondent 4's order dated 19/3/2002. Petitioner 1 placed the cancellation of Item No.29 before respondent 3. On 1/9/2004, respondent 3 dismissed the appeal on th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n 23/8/2002, the Deputy Commissioner of Customs on consideration of the material facts has cancelled the said Item No.29. On 3/10/2002, the Bombay Port Trust also took cognizance of the cancellation and issued an amended Outturn Report. Thus, in view of the fact that the IGM is amended, the very basis of the Order dated 19/3/2002 would not survive and consequently imposing penalty for non-discharge of the cargo would not survive. In other words, on cancellation of Item No.29 of the IGM, there is no question of discharging the cargo under Item No.29 of the IGM and consequently the question of penalising the petitioners for not discharging the cargo set out in Item No.29 of the IGM does not arise. In such a situation, the penalty imposed woul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
