9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (6) TMI 813X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Panel Counsel for the respondent-Department. 3. The appellant is a Steamer Agent of the vessel MV Hargobind. The vessel in question arrived at the Port of Pondicherry on 17.5.1992, with the manifested quantity of about 6800 MT of Potassium Chloride under 5 Bill of Lading issued by the principals of the appellant. After discharge of the cargo, the vessel sailed on 31.7.1992. As per three draft survey reports dated 10.8.1992, the quantity discharged was 6801 MT. 4. However, on the basis of landing certificate issued on 30.9.1994, the Assistant Collector of Customs issued a show cause notice dated 02.3.1995 alleging that there was short landing of the cargo to the extent of 288.725 MT. The appellant sent a reply on 23.5.1995. 5. Though noth ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t could have been chargeable on the goods short landed. 10. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Government on the aforesaid revision, the appellant filed a writ petition in W.P.No.33341 of 2004. This petition was dismissed by the learned Judge by an order dated 19.10.2011, forcing the Steamer Agent to come up with the above writ appeal. 11. Apart from various other grounds, touching upon the method of weighing the quantity of goods discharged by a vessel, Mr.K.Bijai Sundar, learned counsel for the appellant raised three important legal grounds. They are (i) that the Government had no power to condone any delay beyond 90 days and that the provisions of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963, would not apply, (ii) that in any case, the pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rned the appeals, should be excluded. Therefore, the fact that the Government did not go into the question of sufficiency of cause for condonation of delay, would not really advance the cause of the appellant. 15. Insofar as the second question of law is concerned, the learned counsel for the appellant is right. It is seen from paragraph 4 of the order of the Government, the Government condoned the delay and took up the revision itself on the same day and allowed it. It is needless to point out that if an appeal or revision is filed with a delay, a quasi judicial Tribunal would normally consider the question of delay first and it is only after the delay is condoned that the appeal could be taken up for disposal. But, in this case, the Gove ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... discharged by the vessel of a Steamer Agent is questioned, it is not possible for a Steamer Agent to defend themselves against the show cause notice long after the vessel had sailed. Therefore, the third question of law is also be answered in favour of the appellant. 18. However, it is contended by Mr.V.Sundareswaran, learned Senior Panel Counsel for the Department that the appellant merely relied upon a draft survey report for an indication of the quantity of cargo discharged. Under Section 116 of the Customs Act, 1962, the person in charge of the conveyance, is liable to account for the goods that are carried in a conveyance. Under Section 148, the Agent appointed by the person in charge of a conveyance, is liable for the fulfillment in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
