9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (8) TMI 1030X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 03.08.2004, directing the petitioner to pay the shortlanding penalty as per the order passed earlier, which was affirmed by this Court in W.P.No.15601 of 1997 dated 07.07.2004. 3.The facts leading to the impugned notice are that the petitioner is a Steamer Agent for Foreign and Indian ship owners. The third respondent is a main line operator who will carry the goods from various destinations to Hub Port and the Hub Port in the instance case, is Singapore. From the Hub Port, the feeder line operator communicates their vessel to transfer the cargo and discharge the same in the Port of discharge. In the instant case, the main line operator is the third respondent, the Hub Port is Singapore and the feeder line operator is the petitioner herei ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f Customs. The Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) after elaborately considering the factual and legal position, set aside the order and remanded the matter to the lower authority for denovo examination in the light of the observations contained therein and after granting an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner and the third respondent. As against the said order, the petitioner preferred a revision to the Central Government under Section 129 DD of the Customs Act, 1962. The revision petition was rejected by order dated 22.04.1997. The petitioner challenged those orders by filing writ petition in W.P.No. 15601 of 1997. The Writ Court elaborately heard the matter and by a detailed order dated 07.07.2004, dismissed the writ petition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n that it is the main operator who was to be made liable for penalty, it is always open to them to proceed against the main line operator for damages. 9.The petitioner has not initiated any action against the third respondent. Thus, the finding rendered by the Writ Court affirms the orders passed by the Original Authority as well as the other Appellate/Revisional Authorities, whereby the demand for shortlanding penalty has been determined. The present attempt of the petitioner is to re-open a settled issue. There is a legal presumption that when the petitioner challenges the validity of an order before the Court of law or before the statutory Appellate Authority, it is presumed that all contentions have been canvassed and the Court or the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
