9911796707
TMI Blog1991 (7) TMI 115X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as imposed by the original adjudicating authority which is equal to the amount of standard rate of duty applicable to short landed goods. The respondents herein went in appeal before the Collector (Customs) who held that levy of 100% (duty) as penalty even for duty free cargo (being meant for Nepal) is not justified specifically when shipping lines are facing financial difficulties and reduced the penalty to Rs. 50,000/-. 3. In pursuance of the said review proposal a show cause notice of even number dated 31-5-1990 was issued to the respondents calling upon them to show cause as to why the said order-in-appeal should not be set aside and the order passed by the original adjudicating authority be not restored. The grounds of the said revie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r quantification of penalty i.e. standard rate of duty or the effective rate of prescribed by a notification - were the main points for determination, they were informed. 6. The learned Advocate for the respondents apart from reiterating the contents of the written reply stated that Section 116 prescribed only maximum penalty but the actual quantum of penalty is to be determined after looking into all relevant factors such as the circumstances under which the goods were short landed; the financial condition of the company was an important factor in determining the quantum of penalty. 7. Government observe that the liability of the steamer agent is not satisfactorily accounting for the short-landed goods under Section 116 is penal in nat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uch argued by the respondents before him except saying that the goods were in transit to Nepal and therefore were duty free. None of this is relatable to the process of transportation unloading and proper accounting of goods under Section 116 of Customs Act, 1962. It is thus not a factor that can be taken as satisfactory explanation. The respondents have thus failed to offer any satisfactory explanation for the purpose of Section 116 ibid. 8. Government have also considered the issue as to whether nil rate of duty by way of exemption notification or otherwise will necessarily imply that the penalty which is relatable to the duty chargeable under Section 116 will automatically be become nil. The answer is in the negative. For the condition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... T)(HAS) 229/81 dated 5-11-1984 but in that case the particular point was never discussed and the judgement is therefore irrelevant. 10. Certain other orders-in-revision of Government and also of CEGAT (709 710/88 dated 26-4-1988,391 405/88 dated 8-3-1988 and Appeal No. CD (T) HAS-32/78 were quoted. Government note that this issue of no penalty being imposed on the consignments short landed where nil rate of duty was attracted is finally settled in the case of Angus v. Collector of Customs [1988 (38) E.L.T. 20] where penalty imposed under Section 116 in respect of duty free gift consignments which were short landed has been upheld. 11. In the nutshell, therefore, the respondents have not advanced any explanation based on facts transp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
