Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2015 (2) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (2) TMI 690 - AT - CustomsImposition of penalty on shipping agency - Mens rea - Non compliance of circular No.56/2004 cus dated 18/10/2004 - appellant submits that there is no mistake on their part as appellants have declared the correct description in IGM on the basis of import documents. - Held that:- Appellant have not verified the correctness of the inspection report which was supposed to be issued by M/s Moody International Certification (India), which is specified agency as provided under the Handbook of Procedure, 2009. However, inspection report issued by the M/s Moody International Certification Tehran, which is not specified agency for carrying out pre-inspection of consignment of Heavy Melting scrap. On going through circular of 56/2004, it can be seen that the whole procedure and precautions was specified particularly in respect of melting scrap which has specific objective to avoid the casualties due to explosion of the explosive contained in the heavy melting scrap. The circular was issued after serious accident took place, wherein due to explosion 10 persons were died. So it is very obvious that precautions prescribed with the sole objective of saving of human lives. Therefore, heavy responsibility have been casted on the agency involved in importation and clearance of consignments of heavy melting scrap. In the present case the submission of the appellant that merely because of similar name of the pre-inspection agency, mistake has occurred on their part cannot accepted. Shipping line is duty bound to ensure that every consignment of metal scrap in shredded, compressed to loose form is accompanied by such a pre-shipment inspection certificate before it is loaded on the ship and failure of the such compliance, panel action was proposed. - mens rea is not required, in failure of such compliance. I am of the view that irrespective of any reason, if directions provided in the circular is not complied with, whether intentional or unintentional, shipping line is bound to face the consequences. As regard penalty on Shri Joy Francis, since he is directly involved in documentation as authorized by the shipping line, he is also equally responsible for the lapses made by his employer i.e. M/s. Cosco (I) Pvt. Ltd. In view of the above discussion, I am of the considered view that the penalties were correctly and legally imposed upon both the appellants - Decided against assessees.
|