TMI Blog2010 (6) TMI 850X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issues and the similar challenges as such they are being decided by this common judgment. The facts are borrowed from Writ Petition No. 2396/2006. Brief Facts : 2. The petitioners are Ship and Forwarding Agents. M/s. Sea Bridge Maritime Agencies Pvt. Ltd. filed IGM No. 867, dated 23rd March, 1988 of motor vessel JESILENA , The Mumbai Port Trust by their out turn report dated 27th January, 1999 reported short-landing of Item No. 39, 41, 106 and TP 150. The bill of entry was filed by the Customs House Agent/importer. Major part of the cargo was covered under Duty Entitlement Exemption Certificate (DEEC) Scheme as it was brought for home consumption and only cess was liable to be paid. Accordingly, the amount of cess was paid on the sh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . During the course of adjudication, they also submitted written submission on 20th June, 2002 and disowned their liability. The personal hearing was granted by the adjudicating authority to the noticee. The present petitioner also took part in the adjudicating proceeding for the reasons best known to it. The adjudicating authority after having heard did not find favour with the submissions made by the noticee and did not accept the contention with respect to the container covered by Item No. 39 that it was consolidated FCL Container since it was shown as LCL Container in the extract of IGM. Similar finding was recorded in respect of Item No. 41. So far as penal actions vis- -vis Item Nos. TP 150 and 106 are concerned, the proceedings were ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ples of natural justice and that the petitioner being the Cargo agent could not have been held liable to pay penalty under Section 116 of the Customs Act in view of law laid down by this Court in the case of Shaw Wallace Co. Ltd. (supra). In addition to this, one more challenge was set up to the impugned order contending that no duty was involved since the cargo involved was under exemption scheme as such no penalty under Section 116 of the Customs Act could be imposed since the measure of penalty is the amount of duty chargeable on the goods imported. 6. This Court, prima facie; satisfied with the aforesaid submissions, issued rule. On being noticed, the respondents appeared. Without filing any counter, they tried to support the impug ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... orders of adjudication; whether appeals filed at their instance were maintainable. None of these aspects was examined either by the appellate authority or the revisional authority. They erroneously confirmed the liability against the petitioners. Even as per the guidelines laid down by this Court in the case of Shaw Wallace Co. Ltd. (supra) the liability for short landing was that of the Carrier and not of the Cargo Agents, the petitioners herein. The petitioners were never served with the show cause notice since they were under no liability to account for short landing. The impugned orders are in breach of principles of natural justice. 9. In the above backdrop, we have no alternative but to quash and set aside the impugned orders aga ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
