9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (8) TMI 123X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... UJIHARU MARU". The said vessel arrived at the Port of Kandla in November, 1983 to discharge cargo of raw Naphtha consigned to Indian Oil Corporation Limited. As per the bill of lading, the quantity of raw Naphtha loaded at Iraq Port was 4325 m.t. After loading the cargo, independent surveyors had measured the quantity on board the vessel at the loadport of Basra, Iraq by Ullages and certified that the quantity on board was only 4201 m.t. The Master of the vessel, therefore, had lodged a formal protest with the Iraqi Government, being the consignor stating therein that the quantity actually received on board the vessel was 4201 m.t. and not 4325 m.t. 3On arrival of the vessel at the Port of. Kandla for discharging the cargo, the Government ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (Judicial) of the Tribunal allowed the Appeal and held that the quantity in respect of penalty leviable is only 67.970 m.t. and not 207.350 m.t. as held by the first Respondent. However, the learned Member (Technical) differed with the learned Member (Judicial) and held that the quantity not accounted for by the Petitioners is 97.242 m.t. Since, there was difference of opinion between the two learned Members, the matter was referred to the President of the Tribunal to determine the point as to whether the shortage in the quantity unloaded at Kandla should be treated as 67.970 m.t. as held by the learned Member (Judicial) or as 97.242 m.t. as held by the learned Member (Technical). The third Member (Technical) to whom the matter was assigne ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntific measurement which is taken before the discharge of the cargo. All these years, although the cargo was discharged at the port of destination in the presence of the Customs Authorities and the ullage measurement was taken in their presence, the Customs Authorities were disregarding the said measurement on the ground that the same is not certified by the Customs Authorities. Under these circumstances, this Court in the case of Shaw Wallace Co. (supra) made it mandatory for the Customs Authorities to sign the Ullage report so that no such grievance of the Customs Authorities can be entertained. The said decision of this Court in the case of Shaw Wallace Co. Ltd. (supra) has been subsequently followed in the cases of J.M. Bakshi v. De ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tition is passed by CEGAT at Mumbai and since a part of the cause of action has arisen at Mumbai, this Court will have jurisdiction to entertain and dispose of the petition. The decision of the Apex Court in the case of British Airways PLC v. Union of India reported in 2002 (139) E.L.T. 6 (S.C.) which has been relied upon by the Revenue, is distinguishable on facts inasmuch as the issue as to whether ullage measurement or the shore tank measurement should be taken into account for levying penalty under Section 116 of the Customs Act was not an issue before the Apex Court. 9.Rule is accordingly made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a) of the petition. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to cost ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
