9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (11) TMI 1561X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ommissioner (AR), for the Respondent. ORDER Heard both sides. 2. Appellant M/s. Canopus Shipping & Trading Pvt. Ltd. filed this appeal against the impugned order whereby the Commissioner of Customs (Import) ordered confiscation of palm oil weighing 499.922 MT and gave option to the appellant shipping line to redeem the goods on payment of redemption fine of ₹ 1.50 lakhs and imposing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was filed in respect of the goods in question as required under Section 30 of the Customs Act, therefore the goods are liable to confiscation and the appellants are liable to penalty. 5. The contention of the appellant is that as the request is made for amendment in the IGM which is as per Section 30(3) of the Customs Act which provides that if the proper officer satisfied that the import ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... shipping line M/s. Canopus Shipping & Trading Pvt. Ltd. The contention made by them that they could not file the full IGM because of non receipt of 2 bills of lading cannot be accepted under any circumstances. It is the shipping line which issued mate receipt on which bills of lading are based. As such it is unthinkable that a vessel carrying a particular cargo is not aware of its details. If the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. Therefore it is not that they were not aware of the procedure and implications of not filing complete IGM." 8. In view of the above finding, the Commissioner of Customs confiscated the goods and imposed penalty. 9. It is admitted fact that the appellant made a request in writing to amend the IGM. The application for amendment was made to the proper officer in charge of the Import Se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
