1995 (10) TMI 153 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Confiscation of excess dunpeas under Customs Act, 1962.
2. Shortage claim by the appellant.
3. Admissibility of survey report and weighment certificate.
4. Reasoning of the lower authority.
5. Appellant's plea and actions post-clearance.
6. Upholding the impugned order and penalty imposition.

Analysis:

The appeal was against the Additional Collector of Customs' order confiscating 104.900 MTs of dunpeas in excess of the manifested quantity under various sections of the Customs Act, 1962. A penalty of Rs. 500 was also imposed on the appellant. The appellant's counsel argued that the excess quantity was actually a shortage due to clearance discrepancies. He referred to a survey report by M/s. Seas Can Services P. Ltd., which was not conducted in the presence of Customs authorities. The appellant sought to rely on a weighment certificate from the Port Trust authorities to support their claim, but it was obtained after cargo clearance. The Tribunal noted that any additional evidence should have been filed formally and that post-clearance surveys or certificates were not admissible without proper procedure. The appellant's failure to address discrepancies immediately after clearance weakened their claim. The Tribunal upheld the lower authority's decision, finding no merit in the appellant's arguments and affirming the confiscation and penalty.

The learned DR supported the reasoning of the lower authority, aligning with the decision to confiscate the excess dunpeas and impose a penalty. The Tribunal observed that the appellant had cleared their manifested quantity before handing over the vessel to STC for further clearance. There was no dispute regarding this process. The appellant's assertion of not noticing any shortage during their clearance was deemed belated, as any discrepancies should have been identified upon clearance. Post-clearance surveys or certificates, like the one from Port Trust authorities, were considered inadmissible without proper application for additional evidence. The Tribunal concluded that the appellant's delay in addressing manifest discrepancies led to the rightful confiscation of the goods and the nominal penalty imposed. Consequently, the impugned order was upheld, and the appeal was rejected.