9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (7) TMI 769X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ding No.SAFM 769367756, dated 19.01.2017, have been held to be confiscable and the petitioner has been imposed with penalty of Rs. 10,00,000/- under Section 112(a)(i) of the Customs Act, 1962. The operative portion of the impugned order reads as under:- ''(i) I hold that 1,82,066 Kgs. of imported "Soya Beans" valued at Rs. 47,18,750/- (appraised value by the CE) covered under B/L No. SAFM 769367756 dated 19.01.2017 are liable to confiscation. Since the goods are not available, they are not confiscated. (ii) I impose a penalty of Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs only) on M/s. Shanthi Feeds Pvt Ltd., under Section 112(a)(i) of the Customs Act, 1962.'' 3. The impugned order precedes a show cause notice that was issued to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing and Labelling) Regulation, 2011, was without any merits, as the imported goods itself were destroyed as unclaimed cargo pursuant to letter dated 25.07.2018 of the third respondent addressed to the Manager, M/s.Hari CFS, Tuticorin. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner would also draw the attention to Section 46 of the Customs Act, 1962. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that only the importer of any goods is required to file a Bill of Entry. In this case, admittedly, no documents were given to the petitioner and therefore, the petitioner is not an importer for the purpose of Section 46 of the Customs Act, 1962. Consequently, the impugned proceedings are arbitrary and liable to be quashed. 7. Opposing the prayer, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r's claim that they are only the notified party cannot be accepted and they are not the consignee of the goods imported under Bill of Lading No.769367756. The petitioner, in their reply to the show cause notice, dated 28.07.2018, stated that they relinquished the title "Notify Party" to allow the Customs Department to declare the imported cargo as an unclaimed cargo or to confiscate the goods and dispose of the goods. 9. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondents. 10. No doubt, the petitioner would have had transactions with the shipper, namely, STE EKE ET FILS SARL. The transactions were to be routed through the Bank namely, Bank PSC D ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
