TMI Blog2006 (4) TMI 142X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... so responsible. 3.The counsel for the revenue is right in submitting that the question framed on 16-6-2005 does not relate to the appeal. We, accordingly, reframe the following substantial question of law for decision in the appeal. Whether the 'person in charge' as defined in section 2(31) of the Customs Act, 1962 (and since the present matter relates to the vessel, the master of the vessel) is the person responsible in respect of commission or omission in filing the import manifest alone or his agents (steamer agent and slot charterer) having filed the import manifest on his behalf is responsible by virtue of sections 30 and 148(2) of the Customs Act, 1962? 4.The aforesaid question arises from the following relevant facts: (i) On 19th April, 1998, the vessel M.V. Kedah arrived at Mumbai port carrying Propylene Glycol weighing 51.6 metric tonnes covered under 12 bills of lading in three containers. (ii) The Import General Manifest (IGM) was filed for three bills of lading of cargo wherein 12.9 metric tonnes were manifested. The rest of the goods were not manifested. (iii) On the basis of inaccurate IGM, the manifested as well as unmanifested cargo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... steamer agent is liable to penalty for failing to file the full and correct manifest for the goods. 5.The revenue has come up in appeal dissatisfied with the order dated 12-9-2003 passed by the Tribunal. 6.Paragraph 3 is the only discussion in the impugned order. It reads thus - The adjudicating authority has imposed a"3. penalty on M/s. Shahi Containers holding that the responsibility for filing full and correct manifest lies upon the steamer agent, slot charter and the cargo forwarders. This is the same reason he has adopted for imposing penalty on M/s. Patvolk. However, in the face of the clear language of Section 2(31) of the Customs Act, 1962 defining the person in charge of conveyance in relation to a vessel as the master of the vessel, I hold neither the slot charter in nor the steamer agent can be held liable to penalty for failing to file the full and correct manifest for the goods." 7.It would be, thus, seen that the Tribunal applied section 2(31) of the Customs Act, 1962 that defines 'person in charge' and held that since in relation to a vessel M.V. Kedah the person in charge is a master of vessel, the slot charterer or steamer agent cannot be held liable. 8. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of a conveyance is fastened under section 148. Sub-section (1) of Section 148 provides that anything that is required to be done by a person in charge of the conveyance may be done on his behalf by his agent. Under sub-section (2), an agent appointed by the person in charge of a conveyance and any person who represents himself to any officer of customs as an agent or any such person in charge and is accepted as such by that officer, is liable for discharge of all obligations imposed on such person in charge and the penalties and confiscations incurred in respect of the said matter. 16.The scheme of the Act is clearly reflected from the provisions that we referred to hereinabove that the imported goods which are required to be mentioned under the regulations in the import manifest shall not be unloaded at any customs station unless they are specified in such manifest. Where it is found that the import manifest does not disclose the entire imported goods and that in the garb of inaccurate and incomplete import manifest, the unmanifested goods have been unloaded at a customs station, such goods being improperly imported become liable to confiscation under section 111. The import m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... toms Act, in paragraph 9 of the judgment, held thus- The scheme of the Act provides that the"9. cargo must be unloaded at the place of intended destination and it should not be short of the quantity. Where it is found that the cargo has not been unloaded at the requisite destination or the deficiencies are not accounted for to the satisfaction of the Authorities under the Act, the person-in-charge of the conveyance shall be liable in terms of Section 116 of the Act. Besides the person-in-charge of the conveyance, the liability could be fastened upon his agent appointed under the Act or a person representing the person-in-charge who has accepted as such by the officer concerned for the purposes of dealing with the cargo on his (person-in.-charge's) behalf. Assuming that the appellants are neither the person-in-charge within the meaning of Section 2(31) of the Act nor his agent, it cannot be denied that they shall be deemed to be a person representing the person-in-charge to the officers of the Customs as his agent for the purposes of dealing with the cargo offloaded from the aircraft of the appellant's carrier." 19.In paragraph 13, the Supreme Court held thus- It may be notice ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
