TMI Blog2021 (5) TMI 866X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ner was intact, in that circumstance, penalty on the shipping line cannot be imposed - The said decision is based on the decision of Hon ble Bombay High Court in the case of Shaw Wallace Co. Ltd. v. Asstt. Collector [ 1986 (7) TMI 106 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY] . The penalty on the appellant cannot be imposed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Customs Appeal No. 61646 of 2018 - FINAL ORDER NO. 60838/2021 - Dated:- 24-5-2021 - MR. ASHOK JINDAL, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Present for the Appellant: Mr. Saurabh Kapoor, Advocate Present for the Respondent: Mr. Bhasha Ram, Authorized Representative ORDER The appellant is in appeal against the impugned order wherein the penalty of ₹ 1,00,000 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the other hand, the ld. AR opposes the contention of the ld. Counsel and submits that it is a case of mis-declaration of description and weight of the imported goods in bills of landing by the appellant, therefore, penalty is rightly imposable. He also submits that the case of S.K. Colombowala (supra) cannot be relied upon, as penalty has been imposed on the appellant on separate grounds, therefore, if the importer goes to the Settlement Commission, the appellant cannot take the benefit of the wrong done by the appellant. To support this contention, he relied on the following decisions: (i) Shree Naklank Ltd vs. CESTAT Ahmedabad 2019 (365) ELT 407 (Guj) (ii) Yogesh Korani vs. UOI W.P. No. 1458 of 2002 dt. 08.10.2002 (Bombay ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... considering the decisions of the High Courts cited by the Counsel especially that in Shaw Wallace Co. Ltd. (supra) the impugned order passed against the appellant is not maintainable. So we set aside the order and allow the appeal. I hold that penalty on the appellant cannot be imposed. The said decision is based on the decision of Hon ble Madras High Court in the case of Container Corporation of India Ltd. v. Priya Dyes Chemicals - AIR 2013 Mad. 85 and the decision of Hon ble Bombay High Court in the case of Shaw Wallace Co. Ltd. v. Asstt. Collector - 1986 (25) E.L.T. 948 (Bom.). 7. In view of the above discussion, I do not find any merit in the impugned order. The same is set aside qua penalty imposed on the appellant only. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
