Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2005 (6) TMI 48

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... re/Colombo to Madras and from Madras to Singapore/Colombo. On the particular occasion, the petitioner has acted as steamer agent for the vessel Tiger Bridge owned by M/s. Bengal Tiger Lines. For International shipping traffic, the main ports of call in South Asia are Colombo and Singapore. Cargo bound for other ports are discharged at these ports and transhipped through feeder vessels. The main liner carrier however remains contractually liable to the consignor/consignee for performance of the entire contract and for issuance of Bill of Lading for the entire voyage. The transhipment from Singapore/Colombo to Madras is based on a separate contract of carriage between the Main line carrier and the petitioner's principals. In course of such op .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... icular stand either by the petitioner or by M/s. Prabhu Shipping Services Pvt. Ltd. The As-sistant Collector of Customs by order dated 29-3-1995 imposed penalty of Rs. 3,33,000/- because of the shortlanding of one package as no reply had been submitted. 2. Appeal was preferred by the petitioner with the Collector of Customs, who by his order dated 12-6-1995 remanded the matter for fresh disposal. The only ground on which the order of remand was passed is to the effect that Line No. 671 was covered by Import Manifest filed by M/s. Prabhu Shipping Services Pvt. Ltd., and therefore, accountability for the shortlanding lies on M/s. Prabhu Shipping Services Pvt. Ltd., which aspect has not been considered by the lower authority. Thereafter, the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the Customs Act penalty is leviable on the person in charge of the conveyance and not on any other person and the steamer agent is considered as the person in charge of the conveyance, and therefore, the steamer agent is liable. Accordingly, the original authority imposed penalty of Rs. 3,33,000/-. Thereafter, the petitioner filed appeal. The appellate authority modified the penalty amount as Rs. 2,50,000/-, but observed that such penalty is to be paid by the present petitioner in view of the provisions contained in Section 116 of the Customs Act. The petitioner filed Revision before Respondent No. 2, which has been dismissed under the impugned order. 4. The main contention raised by the petitioner is to the effect that since the transhi .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... for to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs, the person-in-charge of the conveyance shall be liable for the penalty. 7. In the present case, the revisional authority by considering the fact that transhipment was of FCL/LCL basis, relying upon a Bombay High Court decision reported in 1986 (25) E.L.T. 948 (Bombay) (Shaw Wallace Co. Ltd. v. Assistant Collector of Customs Others), has come to the conclusion that in the present case, the transhipment was not merely FCL, but it was FCL/LCL and since at the time of unloading of LCL container, seals were intact and such seals were intact even at the time of destuffing of the container, the carrier was responsible. 8. The Bombay High Court decision has laid down the follow .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e-stuffing quantity would be that of the Port Trust authorities and not of the carrier." 9. In the present case, it appears that the authorities have considered that it was not a clear case where the cargo had been brought in Full Container Load and on the other hand at the time it was unloaded at Madras, it had assumed the character of Less Container Load and since seals were found intact at the time of unloading and at the time of destuffing, the carrier was found responsible. This conclusion is based on certain factual conclusions. In the absence of any apparent error in such factual conclusions, it is difficult to come to a different conclusion while deciding the matter under Article 226 of the Constitution. 10. It is also important .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates