New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2016 (6) TMI 1101 - CESTAT HYDERABAD

2016 (6) TMI 1101 - CESTAT HYDERABAD - TMI - Discrepancy in furnishing of IGM (import manifest or import report) - Goods (transit cargo) were not mentioned in IGM - confiscation of goods and levy of redemption fine - levy of penalty - Held that:- The facts presented by the case do not reveal any fraudulent intention. Further there is no such finding made in the impugned order. The confiscation is on the ground of failure to declare the Lube oil against the Same Bottom Cargo in the Form / IGM. As .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ve for the respondent ORDER [ Order per: Sulekha Beevi, C.S. ] The issue in the above two appeals being connected are disposed by this common order. 2. The appellant in C/30017/2015 is Mr. Glofiro Casenas Salise, who is Master of vessel MT Stolt Hill. On 01/10/2015, M/s. JM Baxi, the Steamer Agents filed the Prior Entry Import General Manifest (IGM). It was mentioned therein that the vessel is arriving from Singapore to discharge 20360.708 MT of caustic soda liquid at port (Visakhapatnam) and af .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ides that mentioned in IGM, he replied in the affirmative and submitted two copies of ullage reports which showed that the vessel was carrying 1499.669MT of Ultra-S8 branded Lube oil and 999.610 MT of Ultra-S4 branded lube oil. It is the case of the department that appellant had not declared this bottom cargo in the IGM. Accordingly the Customs department seized the Lube oil under Section 110 of Customs Act, 1962, for contravention of Section 30 of the Customs Act, 1962. The statement of appella .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

oximately valued at ₹ 11,85,72,080/- which were not declared in IGM and thus violated Section 30 of Customs Act, 1962. The appellant was given an option to redeem the goods on payment of ₹ 5,00,000/- as redemption fine. A penalty of ₹ 2,00,000/- was imposed on the appellant and penalty of ₹ 1,00,000/- was imposed on M/s.JM Baxi & Co., who is the Steamer Agent for the vessel. Being aggrieved, the appellants have preferred these appeals. 4. The learned counsel appearing .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

khapatnam Port. During the signing of the documents, the appellant, Master of the vessel, omitted to note that in one of the Form, Same Bottom Cargo was not mentioned. Thus there was an omission to mention that the vessel was carrying Same Bottom Cargo of Lube oil in one of the Form in IGM. In the arrival papers submitted to the Customs and Port officers this Transit Cargo (Lube oil) was clearly and correctly mentioned. It is submitted that the omission to mention in IGM was only an inadvertent .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

the findings in the impugned order. He submitted that the appellant had not declared the Lube Oil in the IGM as required under Section 30 of Customs Act, 1962. The Same Bottom Cargo declaration in the Boarding Particulars that was prepared by the agent M/s. JM Baxi & Co. and signed by the Master of the vessel, the appellant herein, was marked as - indicating that there is no Same Bottom Cargo being carried by the vessel. That therefore the confiscation and imposition of penalties is justifi .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version