9911796707
TMI Blog1991 (2) TMI 159X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to decide this case on the basis of evidence on record and the written submissions made by the applicant. 2. This revision application arises out of the order-in-appeal No. Cal. Cus. 1238/90 dated 31-7-1990 issued by the Collector (Appeals), Calcutta. A penalty of Rs. 1,07,282/- was imposed on the applicants under Section 116 of the Customs Act, 1962 for short-landing of 357 bags of low density ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tated that all other consignments of LDPE were delivered in full (which has not been controverted by Collector (Appeals)); that the OTR itself mentions of 315 bags with marks and no marks also landed as excess cargo which did not appear in the manifest and appreciating that the practice of attributing shortages to only one line number normally relatable to the party who clears the goods in the end ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o. 274. Hence adopting a pro rata formula and permitting adjustment of the aforesaid 255 bags excess landed the penalty under Section 116 of the Customs Act, 1962 is reduced from Rs. 1,07,000/- to Rs. 31,000/- holding that shortage of bags to the extent of 255 are satisfactorily explained.
6. The revision application is allowed in above terms with consequential relief. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
