Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2014 (10) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (10) TMI 46 - CESTAT AHMEDABADConfiscation of goods - Redemption fine - Whether the gas oil brought into the shore tank at Mundra and Kandla should be considered as transshipment cargo or not - Held that:- It is observed from the prevailing import-export policy at the relevant time that Hydrcarbons of Import Export Policy headings 27101111, 27101112, 27101113, 27101119, 27101120, 27101190, 27101930, 2710 1940 were permitted to be imported only through State Trading Enterprises or the canalized agencies. The goods of heading 27101950, 27101960, 27101970, 27101980, 27101990 and Heading 2711, pertaining to certain Hydrocarbon gases, of import export policy, were freely importable. It has been correctly observed by the adjudicating authority that the prospective buyers and the port of destination were not known/declared at the time of export. During the course of hearing on a specific query by the Bench it was submitted that after permissions of export given to the main appellant as a result of High Court’s order, cargo was taken back by the owner of the cargo to Middle East from where one of the consignment was originally procured. In the facts & circumstances of this case, it becomes difficult to appreciate as to why the cargo was brought into territory of India for transshipment when the same was to be taken back to the same place from where the goods originated. At the time of taking cargo out of India also no port of destination was given by the main appellant. From the facts available on record; incomplete description of the cargo given in the cargo declarations, no mention of the port of destination and the name of any prospective buyer and taking of ‘gas oil’ back to the same place from where partly the cargo originated, suggest that crgo was not for transshipment. As per the contents of the letter dt.30.04.2010 written by the main appellant to the Joint Commissioner Customs Kandla, the main appellant and their CHA were well aware that there are earlier examples where transshipments have been granted and certain importers like M/s Adani Enterprises Ltd have already explored the possibility of supply of HSD to EOUs, units in SEZ and as bunkers for internationally sailing vessels, after warehousing the same. Goods ‘gas oil’, subsequently equated to HSD, was not intended for transshipment. Accordingly, the goods were rightly confiscated and redemption fines were correctly imposed along with penalties on the main appellant. - Decided against the assessee. M/s Act Shipping Ltd (CHA) was well aware of various procedures of transshipment and the facts that on similar transshipments permission was granted by the Revenue but the CHA never guided the main appellant to file proper IGMs showing the port of destination etc. at the time of filing IGM, as required under the procedures prescribed by Revenue. Penalties upon the CHA and Shri T.V. Sujan Director of M/s Act Shipping Ltd have thus been correctly imposed. Penalties on custodians - Held that:- It has been correctly argued that they had no knowledge that the goods stored in the shore tanks were not meant for transshipment and were not going to be personally benefited in these proceedings. Therefore, penalties imposed upon the custodians and their employees are set aside.
|