9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the Tribunal's finding that the sweepings have no relation to the relevant consignment is perverse and arrived at without considering all material evidence. 2. Whether the Tribunal should have held that the onus of proof was on the Customs authorities and that the appellant was entitled to the benefit of any doubt. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Relation of Sweepings to the Relevant Consignment The Tribunal had determined that the sweepings of 630 bags of Ammonium Nitrate Phosphate had no relation to the relevant consignment. This finding was challenged as being perverse and arrived at without considering all material evidence. The facts of the case indicate that the Port Trust of Calcutta reported a shortlanding of 821 bags of Ammonium Nitrate Phosphate. The Steamer Agents, M/s. The Scindia Steam Navigation Co. Ltd., stated that 630 bags of Ammonium Nitrate Phosphate were landed from the vessel as sweepings and cleared by M/s. The Food Corporation of India Ltd. The Deputy Collector of Customs imposed a penalty under Section 116 of the Customs Act, 1962, on the Steamer Agents for failing to satisfactorily explain the shortlanded cargo. The Appellate Collector of Customs upheld this decision, stating that there was no evidence connecting the sweepings with the relevant Bill of Entry and no evidence that the sweepings had been cleared. However, the High Court found that the sweepings were indeed part of the cargo carried by the vessel and belonged to M/s. Food Corporation of India, who had cleared the sweepings after a necessary survey. The Court noted that the Port Trust Outturn Report recorded the landing of 630 bags of sweepings, and the letters from the Food Corporation of India confirmed the clearance of these sweepings. The Court concluded that the Tribunal's finding was perverse and arbitrary, especially in light of the evidence presented. Issue 2: Onus of Proof and Benefit of Doubt The second issue was whether the Tribunal should have held that the onus of proof was on the Customs authorities and that the appellant was entitled to the benefit of any doubt. The High Court emphasized that under Section 116 of the Customs Act, 1962, the liability of the ship owner is discharged after landing the goods, and any pilferage or theft thereafter is not the responsibility of the steamer agent. The Court referenced a previous judgment, which clarified that the shortlanding must be established like any other fact and that the outturn report alone is not conclusive evidence. The Court noted that the Customs authorities had failed to adjust the sweepings landed from the vessel against the shortlanded quantity, which is an established practice at all levels of Customs. The Court concluded that the Tribunal erred in not giving the benefit of doubt to the appellant, as there was sufficient evidence to show that the sweepings were part of the consignment and had been cleared by the consignee. The onus of proof was on the Customs authorities to establish the shortlanding, which they failed to do satisfactorily. Conclusion: The High Court answered both questions in the affirmative and in favor of the petitioner. The Court held that the Tribunal's finding regarding the sweepings was perverse and that the onus of proof was on the Customs authorities, entitling the appellant to the benefit of doubt. There was no order as to costs.
|
