Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2022 (2) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (2) TMI 553 - AT - CustomsConfiscation of goods - insulated copper cables - loading of goods on board without ‘let export order (LEO)’ - failure to produce the shipping bill before the ‘proper officer’ leading to consequent breach of section 35 and section 40 of Customs Act, 1962 by the others - disregard to requirements mandated in section 50 of Customs Act, 1962 - HELD THAT:- The ‘let export order (LEO)’, stipulated in section 50 of Customs Act, 1962, had been granted on 19th April 2008. With that, the process of export which was the responsibility of the exporter stood completed even if belatedly. The breach in loading of the cargo on the vessel ahead of grant of ‘let export order (LEO)’ is attributable to the person-in-charge of the conveyance and not the exporter. Nonetheless, the goods, having been loaded in contravention of the prescription in section 40 of Customs Act, 1962, was liable to confiscation under section 113 (g) of Customs Act, 1962. That finding in the impugned order is without fault - the goods were not available for confiscation by the adjudicating authority and, therefore, as held by the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (IMPORT) , MUMBAI VERSUS FINESSE CREATION INC. [2009 (8) TMI 115 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT], the imposition of redemption fine is without authority of law. The regularisation of the process for export is on record. Moreover, the vessel had been allowed to depart in accordance with section 42 of Customs Act, 1962 after issue of ‘port clearance’ by the ‘proper officer’ though it was well within the authority of such officer to offload the offending goods. Therefore, it cannot be said that the appellant was in any way connected with illicit shipment of export cargo. Consequently, the imposition of penalty under section 114 of Customs Act, 1962 is unjustified - Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
|