2014 (1) TMI 1172

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... me 70 MT of cement had been loaded, the officers of Customs came and stopped the loading on the ground that let export order had not been given and therefore loading was improper. On this ground proceedings were proposed to be initiated. But the appellant company and others concerned waived issue of show cause notice and thereafter impugned order has been passed imposing penalty of Rs.35,000/- on SCL, Rs.20,000/- on Shri K.J.V. Sharma, General Manager of SCL, Rs.15,000/- on Shri B.H. Wagh, supervisor of SCL, penalty of Rs.20,000/- on Shri V.R. Shial, shipping agent of shipping line and Rs.10,000/- on the tindal of the vessel. Further the 70 MT of cement valued at Rs.1,64,500/- was confiscated and redemption fine of Rs.50,000/- has been impo .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... a lenient view. Once it is accepted that what has happened is a bonafide mistake, it cannot be said that the vessel was used in smuggling with the knowledge of the owner. Under these circumstances, the vessel cannot be said to be liable to confiscation and therefore the confiscation of the vessel is not sustainable and accordingly set aside. 3. As regards the employees of the appellant it cannot be said that all of them were concerned with export of the goods excepting the supervisor who was in the port and who was an employee of the company representing the company. As an employee he was performing the duty and probably was extremely eager to ensure that the goods are loaded as early as possible and no malafide intention has been attribu .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... onsidered is whether the Commissioner who stated that he would like to be lenient in this case since he has not found any malafide intention was really very lenient. In my view the Commissioner has been quite harsh in deciding the quantum of penalty. Once it is concluded that omission is procedural in nature, it should be nominal and only to ensure that such mistakes do not happen again. Therefore in my view in this case penalty also has to be in nominal terms just to ensure that legal provisions are not ignored even by mistake. With these observations, I proceed to decide the quantum of penalties. Accordingly the redemption fine on the cement is reduced from Rs.50,000/- to Rs.10,000/-. The penalty of Rs.35,000/- imposed on M/s SCL is reduc .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X