TMI Blog2002 (8) TMI 124X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tons of Acrylonitrile Monomer in bulk for discharge at Kandla. After filing the Import General Manifest, the vessel discharged the cargo and the said vessel sailed from Kandla soon thereafter. As per the ullage report dated 30th June, 1984 taken before the time of discharge of the cargo, it was noticed that the total quantity discharged was 948.33 M.T. as against the quantity of 949.584 M.T. manifested in the I.G.M. Thus shortage of 1.250 M.T noticed in the ullage report was well within the permissible limit as ocean loss. By a show cause notice dated 22nd March, 1985, the Assistant Collector of Customs, Kandla called upon the Petitioners to show cause as to why action u/s. 116 of the Customs Act should not be taken against the Petitioners ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the case of Shaw Wallace Co. Ltd. v. Assistant Collector of Customs Others reported in 1986 (25) E.L.T. 948 (Bombay) has held that the quantity mentioned in ullage report should be accepted as correct quantity brought by the vessel for unloading. Division Bench of this Court in the case of Forbes Forbes Campbell and Co. Ltd. v. The Deputy Collector of Customs other in Writ Petition No. 3299 of 1987 decided on 10th July, 2002 has reiterated that the Customs authorities cannot penalize the ship owners u/s. 116 of the Customs Act by taking the quantity mentioned in the shore tank measurement instead of the quantity in the ullage report. It was submitted that in view of the binding decision of this Hon'ble Court, the orders impugned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... its jurisdiction. In the instant case, admittedly the order of the Collector of Customs (Appeals) which is impugned in the petition has been passed at Mumbai and hence this Court has jurisdiction to entertain the present petition. Accordingly there is no merit in the first contention raised by the Revenue. 6.As regards the second contention raised by the Respondents, we are of the opinion that in view of the pendency of the petition for more than 10 years in this Court and in view of the fact that the issues raised in the petition are covered by the decisions of this Court, the impugned orders are liable to be quashed and set aside. There is no dispute that as per the ullage report, the shortage noticed at the time of the discharge of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
