Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Maersk India Pvt. Ltd vs Commissioner Of Customs, Mumbai on 17 October, 2008
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI COURT No. III APPEAL No. C/1488/02 (Arising out of Order-in-Original No. S/10-11/02 Import (JCH) dated 3.9.2002 passed by Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai) For approval and signature: Hon'ble Ms. Jyoti Balasundaram (Vice President) ======================================================
1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see : No the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
2. Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the :
CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?
3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy : Seen of the Order?
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental : Yes authorities?
====================================================== Maersk India Pvt. Ltd. Appellant Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai Respondent Appearance: Shri Manoj Sanklecha, Advocate, for appellant Shri S.M. Vaidya, Authorised Representative (JDR), for respondent CORAM: Hon'ble Ms. Jyoti Balasundaram, Vice President Date of Hearing: 17.10.2008 Date of Decision: 24.10.2008 ORDER NO................................. Per: Ms. Jyoti Balasundaram, Vice President
The appellants herein, steamer agents, filed IGM dated 29.7.2002 for vessel "M.V. Gudrun Maersk". In the manifest, they failed to include goods covered by bill of lading No. POCLWCZ/225575786 dated 28.6.2002 in respect of one container. However, the goods covered in this bill of lading were unloaded from the ship. The commissioner of Customs ordered confiscation of the unmanifested goods valued at about Rs.19.69 lakhs under the provisions of Section 111(f) and (g) with an option to redeem them on payment of a fine of Rs.2,00,000/- and imposed penalty of Rs.20,000/- under Section 112(a) on the appellants, permitting amendment of the IGM so as to include the unmanifested goods, on payment of fine and penalty. Hence this appeal.
2. The submission of the appellants is that they had applied for amendment of the IGM as per Section 30 of the Customs Act and there is no finding that there was any fraudulent intention on their part and, therefore, amendment should have been permitted so as to include the unmanifested goods and confiscation and penalty should not have been ordered/imposed. In this connection, they rely upon Tribunal's orders in the case of P&O Nedlloyed (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs. CC, Mumbai 2004 (166) ELT 489 and Arebeen Star Maritme Agencies Pvt. Ltd. vs. CC, Raigad 2006 (201) ELT 106. However, in the case of CC(I), New Cus. House, Mumbai vs. Patvolk 2006 (202) ELT 411 (Bom.), the Hon'ble Bombay High Court has held that non-disclosure of entire goods in import manifest results in liability of such goods to confiscation and the person in charge liable to penalty. Even in that case, there was an application for amendment in IGM and yet the Court held that the slot charterer, M/s. Shahi Containers, and the steamer agent, M/s. Patvolk, being the representatives of the master of the vessel, were responsible in respect of commission or omission in filing Import Manifest and, therefore, liable to penalty. Following the ratio of the Bombay High Court's judgment cited supra, I uphold the impugned order and reject the appeal.
(Pronounced in Court on 24.10.2008) (Jyoti Balasundaram) Vice President tvu 1 3