9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (12) TMI 648X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arise from a common Order-in-Appeal No. 272 & 273 (D'Node) /2012 (JNCH)/EXP-46 & 47 dated 24/05/2012 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Mumbai-II; therefore, they are being taken up together. 2. The appellants are M/s. G.S. Export, Navi Mumbai, the exporter and M/s. D.P. Logistics Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai, the CHA. The appellant filed a shipping bill No. 7980986 dated 23/12/2012 for th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he appellants preferred appeals before the lower appellate authority who rejected the appeals. Hence they are before this Tribunal. 3. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that it was the mistake of the shipping line to have sailed with the container-consignment for which LEO was not given and once the goods are handed over to the steamer agent (inside the Port area), the appellants do not h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... volved, the appellants are liable to penalty. As per the provisions of Section 50 and 51 of Customs Act, it is the responsibility of the exporter as well as the CHA to ensure that the goods are made available to the Customs for examination before export and thereafter, for loading of the goods in the presence of the Customs officer on to the vessel. Inasmuch as same has not been complied with, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
