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 694 - AT - CustomsPenalty u/s 114(iii) - Confiscation of goods - Held that:- It is the shipping agency who is supposed to perform the job of loading of export consignments to the vessel who in the present case is M/s. Zim Integrated Shipping Services India (P) Ltd. The said shipping line was appointed by the foreign consignee M/s. Hanesbrands Inc. USA and payment for the same was also made by the said consignee. It is observed that as regards the shipping line is concerned they are not the authorised agent of exporter. Moreover, nothing was brought on record either in the show-cause notice or in the impugned order that the exporter is involved in the mistake of sailing of the vessel carried out by shipping line. It is also fact that whatsoever mistake has occurred there is no gain flowing to the exporter. It is only a procedural lapse which even does not involve any Revenue. In the same impugned order, the penalty was also imposed on the shipping line and the CHA who were directly involved in the job of loading of vessel and sailing thereof in the port area. Similar issue earlier came up before this Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Emirates Shipping Agencies (I) Pvt. Ltd. [2009 (3) TMI 395 - CESTAT, MUMBAI] and Mohini Organics Pvt. Ltd. cited [2009 (2) TMI 184 - CESTAT, MUMBAI]. - Following the case laws of Bombay High Court in Kusters Calico Machinery Ltd. (2010 (3) TMI 474 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT), I am of the view that the penalty on the exporter is not warranted - Decided in favour of assessee.
|