TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Customs Act penalty reduced from Rs. 1.60 lakh to Rs. 25,000 for non-filing of manifest. Upheld agents' liability.</h1> <h3>TRANSWORLD SHIPPING Versus COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, MUMBAI</h3> TRANSWORLD SHIPPING Versus COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, MUMBAI - 2003 (154) E.L.T. 137 (Tri. - Mumbai) Issues:1. Penalty imposition under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 for not manifesting one container.2. Applicability of Section 112 versus Section 117 for non-filing of manifest.3. Interpretation of relevant provisions of the Customs Act regarding unmanifested goods and penal liability.Issue 1: Penalty Imposition under Section 112The appellant argued that the penalty of Rs. 1.60 lakh imposed under Section 112 was unjustified as there was no mens rea involved, it was a genuine error, no confiscation of goods occurred, and no penalty was imposed on any individual. The appellant contended that Section 117, not Section 112, was the correct provision for non-filing of manifest. The appellant cited relevant case laws to support their argument.Issue 2: Applicability of Section 112 versus Section 117The respondent, representing the Revenue, supported the penalty under Section 112, stating that since the container was not manifested, the Steamer Agents were liable for penalty under this section. It was also argued that Sections 32 and 34 of the Customs Act were violated, and Section 112 did not require mens rea for penalty imposition.Issue 3: Interpretation of Customs Act ProvisionsThe judgment analyzed the Customs Act provisions, emphasizing the importance of proper Customs Control over imported cargo until clearance for home consumption. Sections 30, 32, 111(f), and 112 were discussed in detail. It was highlighted that unmanifested goods are liable for confiscation, and individuals involved in omitting to manifest such goods are subject to penal action under both clauses (a) and (b) of Section 112. The responsibility of Steamer Agents in filing manifests on behalf of the vessel's master and the consequences of non-compliance were explained.The judgment concluded that the penalty imposed under Section 112 was justified, reducing it from Rs. 1.60 lakh to Rs. 25,000 based on the case facts and appellant's explanations. The decision affirmed the penalization of the appellants as agents of the vessel's master under both clauses (a) and (b) of Section 112. The appeal was ultimately rejected, with the pre-deposit amount adjusted accordingly.
TaxTMI 