TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 157X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat port on payment of duty shall alone be unloaded - The impugned consignment is not alleged to have been intended for any other port - goods have been unloaded, whether inadvertently or otherwise, but there is no allegation that these were not inventorised in the records of the duly appointed custodian. In the absence of any such evidence, invoking of section 111(g) for confiscation is not in accordance with law - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. - C/919 & 921/2006 - A/85285/85287/17/SMB - Dated:- 14-9-2016 - Shri C J Mathew, Member (Technical) Shri Chatru Singh, Asstt. Commissioner (AR) for the appellant None for the respondent Order Revenue is in appeal against order-in-original no. 65/2005/CAC/CC(I)/AK ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rmission by the proper officer and, if the amendment be in the category of major , after adjudication for imposition of penalty and if warranted, even by obtaining waiver of both notice and written defence. 5. Though the cited circular does direct the imposition of penalty, which, itself, burden on impropriety act considering that invoking of section 111 and section 112 of Customs Act, 1962 is in exercise of quasi-judicial power that no superior authority can mandate, nay, even influence, it is silent on the statutory provision to be invoked. From a perusal of the circular, it appears that the issuing authority was prompted to resort to this deterrent owing to unfavourable dwell time - that hallelujah benchmark adopted by Indian cus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... id circular, imposition of penalty consequent upon setting aside of impugned order is also ruled out. It is also moot whether it would be equitable to remand the matter in the absence of a circumscribing limit to a fresh adjudication by the original authority. It would appear that this entire exercise of review and appeal is of little avail to Revenue as the prayers in the appeal do little to advance their cause. 7. There appears to be a disconnect between the provisions of the statute that are alleged to have been contravened for justifying the confiscation under section 111 (f) and (g) and imposition of penalties under section 112 of Customs Act, 1962. Section 111(f) empowers confiscation of goods that, despite being required to be men ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lty; as to which of the two carries greater authority is certainly not a matter of doubt. No administrative instruction can limit or impede statutory empowerment. The peremptoriness of the instruction in the circular is contrary to law and, to that extent, renders it unenforceable. 9. There is no dispute that the goods were intended for unloading at Mumbai port. Section 32 forbids the unloading of goods at the port for which the goods are not manifested. The purpose of section 30 and section 32 is to ensure that only such goods as are, and can be, cleared from that port on payment of duty shall alone be unloaded. The impugned consignment is not alleged to have been intended for any other port. 10. The above provisions of Customs Act, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
