Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Mumbai
Samrat Shipping Co. Pvt. Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Customs on 14 September, 1999
Equivalent citations: 2000ECR272(TRI.-MUMBAI), 2000(115)ELT577(TRI-MUMBAI)
ORDER J.H. Joglekar, Member (T)
1. The appellants are Steamer Agent they filed an Import General Manifest for a vessel on 5-7-1995. The manifest did not record two cases consigned to an importer in Pune. The steamer agents sought to amend the IGM on 20-7-1995. The Commissioner of Customs in the impugned order held that in landing the goods which were not shown in the IGM initially filed, the steamer agent had rendered the goods liable to confiscation under Section 111(f) and (g) of the Customs Act, 1962. Although he did not confiscate those goods, he imposed a penalty of Rs. 2.5 lakhs on the steamer agent. Hence, the present appeal.
2. I have heard Shri N.P. Jagasia the ld. Counsel for the appellant and Shri K.L. Ramteke, the ld. JDR for the Revenue.
3. As disclosed by Shri Jagasia, the two cases were part of the goods belonging to several importers stuffed in one container (LCL container). When this container was destuffed on 11-7-1995 under tally, it came to notice that these cases had not been manifested. The reason was that the bills of lading had not been forwarded to the steamer agent by the agency which had loaded the container. This fact was notified by M/s. CMB Transport Agencies vide their letter dated 20-7-1995 which finds mention in the impugned order. Thereafter the steamer agents filed an amendment. Shri Jagasia stated that this was a normal occurrence and such amendment was permitted to be made in terms of Sub-section (3) of Section 30 of the Act. It is his submission that the non-mention of the cases in the IGM was due to lack of knowledge on part of the steamer agent and that no penalty was warranted.
4. I have considered the submissions made.
5. The IGM is filed by the steamer agent on the strength of the bills of lading given to them by the shipping line. In case the line or the shipping agents had omitted giving of any bill of lading or where the bill of lading is given late, that cargo does not find its place in the IGM. In such a situation amendment is asked for. Amendment of manifest is a very common occurrence. The law permits amendment to be accepted by the Customs in absence of any suspicion. In the present case the importer was a well known manufacturer. The goods apparently were not contraband. The Collector's mind that the goods were harmless is apparent in his finding where he has refrained from confiscating the goods imported unmanifested. The reason why there was a delay has come out in the proceedings before the Commissioner also which reasons were reiterated by Shri Jagasia. In this case I find that a routine occurrence was converted into a case of great magnitude by the Commissioner. I find no reason in the circumstances to uphold the imposition of penalty on the appellants.
6. The appeal is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. Consequential relief is granted.