2010 (11) TMI 909 - AT - Customs

Imposition of redemption fine on importer - no Let Export Orders were given in respect of these three consignments prior to loading of the consignments on the ship. Such orders were only taken on the next day - Held that - Since the exporters were no way involved in the prior shipment of the cargo and no other contravention in relation to the exported goods has been brought out and further the goods are also not available for confiscation we find no reason for imposition of the redemption fine and therefore order of confiscation and imposition of redemption fine are set aside. Imposition of penalty on CHA - Held that - It appears that they had not instructed the shipping agent to ship the goods on the vessel ALPS on a prior date which happened to be a holiday i.e. Sunday. They were waiting to get the let export order which they got on the next working day as they were under the impression that the concerned vessels would be sailing only subsequent to that date as per the dates notified by the shipping agents. Hence we find that the contravention of loading the impugned containers without let export order cannot be attributed to the appellant CHA - penalty set aside. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Issues:
1. Imposition of penalty on steamer agents for loading export consignments without Let Export Orders.
2. Imposition of redemption fine on exporters and CHA.
3. Contravention of loading containers without Let Export Orders and attribution of responsibility to CHA.
4. Appeal outcomes for exporter and CHA.

Analysis:
1. The judgment addresses the imposition of a penalty on steamer agents for loading three export consignments on a ship without Let Export Orders. The customs clearance was given, but the orders were obtained after loading. The adjudicating Commissioner penalized the steamer agents with a fine of Rs. 5 lakhs. However, no appeal was filed by the steamer agents against this penalty. The appeals before the tribunal were by the exporter and the CHA. The tribunal found that since the exporters were not involved in the prior shipment and no other contraventions were evident, the redemption fine and confiscation order were set aside.

2. In relation to the imposition of a redemption fine on the exporters and CHA, the tribunal noted that the exporters were not responsible for the prior shipment of the cargo without Let Export Orders. As the goods were not available for confiscation and no other contraventions were established, the tribunal found no justification for the redemption fine. Consequently, the order of confiscation and the redemption fine were both set aside.

3. The judgment also delves into the responsibility of the CHA regarding the contravention of loading containers without Let Export Orders. The CHA demonstrated that they had not instructed the shipping agent to ship the goods on a specific date, as they were waiting for the Let Export Orders. The CHA believed the vessels would sail only after obtaining the necessary orders. Since the shipping agent was penalized for the offense and no appeal was filed against them, the tribunal found no case against the CHA. Consequently, the penalty imposed on the CHA was set aside.

4. Finally, the judgment concludes by allowing both appeals by the exporter and the CHA, providing consequential benefits to the appellants. The stay applications were also disposed of in light of the appeal outcomes, bringing closure to the legal proceedings.

This comprehensive analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues addressed by the tribunal and the detailed reasoning behind the decisions rendered in each aspect of the case.

← Previous Next →