TMI Blog2016 (9) TMI 273X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ible in as much as they must abide the law prevailing. Ignorance of law is no excuse – some leniency granted – redemption fine and penalty decreased – appeal disposed off – decided against appellant. - C/89498/13 - A/89200/16/SMB - Dated:- 10-8-2016 - Shri Ramesh Nair, Member (Judicial) Shri Navnit Chaudhary, Director for Appellant Shri D. S. Maan, Assistant Commissioner (A.R) for respondent ORDER The fact of the case is that the appellant M/s. Arshiya Supply Chain Management Pvt. Ltd. having a Service Unit at Free Trade Warehousing Zone (FTWZ-SEZ) of its parent company, Arshiya Limited located at Sai Village, Panvel, Raigad District, Maharashtra. The FTWZ was notified as Sector Specific Special Economic Zone by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... time without payment of Custom Duty as provided for, under the Goods Imported (Conditions of Trans-shipment) Regulations, 1995 and store them at Arshiya FTWZ within the Customs Area declared under Section 8 of the Customs Act, 1962 and also to transport the goods from Arshiya FTWZ for disposal/re-export. The same was accepted by the Deputy Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), M P Wing, Alibag Division, Maharashtra. The appellant approached the Commissioner Customs, Marine Preventive, New Customs House, Mumbai for allowing transshipment under the provision of Rule 29 of SEZ Rules, 2006 to Arshiya FTWZ (port code INPNV 6) for warehousing vide letter No. ASCM/FTWZ/002/2013 dt. 29.07.2013, 02.08.2013 and 06.08.2013. The Commissioner of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Dighi Port instead of raising any objection. Therefore in such case there is no fault of the appellant for unloading the cargo at Dighi Port. The unloading of cargo is not within the right of the appellant, it is only possible after permission of the Customs authorities. Therefore, if the Dighi Port is not allowed for unloading of cargo of the captioned goods the Custom authorities should not have permitted the same. Once the permission is granted by the customs authorities after knowing all the facts about the nature of the goods, the appellant cannot be made liable for penalty. He placed reliance on the judgment of Division Bench of the Ahmedabad Tribunal in the case of Essar Power Gujarat Ltd. Vs. Commissioner 2011 (265) ELT 143 (T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ver, it is observed that the IGM in respect of the subject goods was filed by the shipping line to the Custom department. As per Sections 31 32 of the Act, the master of the vessel is not suppose to unload the cargo unless there is a permission from the Customs authorities. In the present case, there is no dispute that the IGM was filed and after the permission of the Ld. Assistant Commissioner, the cargo was unloaded. When there was a restriction of unloading of goods at Dighi Port while filing the IGM and before permitting the unloading, the Customs department could have raised the objection and denied the unloading, therefore even if there is a lapse the appellant cannot be made responsible solely for the same. At the same time, it i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
