1984 (6) TMI 256 - AT - Customs

Tribunal Imposes Penalty on Unaccounted Goods under Customs Act

BINNY LIMITED, COCHIN Versus COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS AND CENTRAL EXCISE, COCHIN

The Tribunal concluded that penalties could be imposed on shorthanded goods not chargeable to duty, as the advocate's argument was not raised during the ... - Issues:1. Imposition of penalty on shorthanded goods not chargeable to duty2. Effect of Marine Note of Protest on liability for loss or damage to cargo3. Justification for levying penalty on shorthanded goods not subject to customs duty4. Interpretation of Marine Note of Protest by the Appellate Tribunal5. Levy of penalty without evidence of smuggling or sale of unaccounted goods6. Warranted imposition of penalty in the absence of finding regarding unaccounted goods being smuggled7. Quantum of penalty imposed being excessiveAnalysis:1. The application sought a reference to the High Court on whether penalties can be imposed on shorthanded goods not chargeable to duty. The advocate argued that since other goods in the same Bill of Entry were assessed free of duty, the shorthanded goods should also be treated as non-dutiable. However, this argument was not raised during the oral hearing, and the Tribunal's order did not address this aspect, leading to the conclusion that this issue did not merit a reference to the High Court.2. The questions regarding the Marine Note of Protest and its impact on liability for shortlanding were discussed. The Tribunal found that in the specific circumstances of the case, the Note of Protest did not explain the shortlanding of the bags. As this was a factual determination related to the importation circumstances, no legal question arose for High Court reference.3. It was clarified that the absence of evidence suggesting that the shortlanded goods were smuggled into the country rendered the question of smuggling irrelevant to the adjudication under Section 116 of the Customs Act. The failure to account for the missing goods to the satisfaction of the proper officer led to the imposition of a penalty, as per the legal requirement.4. The Tribunal emphasized that the imposition of a penalty follows the non-accountal of goods to the satisfaction of the proper officer. Once it was established that there was a failure to account for the goods, the penalty imposition was justified under the Customs Act.5. Regarding the quantum of penalty, it was explained that the determination of the penalty amount falls within the judicial discretion, with a limit of twice the duty payable on the goods. In the absence of any indication of malice or ulterior motives in imposing the penalty, the exercise of discretion did not raise any legal issue warranting a High Court reference.6. Ultimately, the Tribunal rejected the application as none of the raised questions involved points of law requiring a reference to the High Court. The issues raised were deemed to be either factual in nature or falling within the scope of judicial discretion, not necessitating legal intervention.