1984 (10) TMI 234 - AT - Customs

Tribunal transfers Revision App to hear as appeal, holds steamer agents liable for shortlanding penalty.

The Tribunal transferred the Revision Application to the Tribunal for hearing as an appeal. The steamer agents were held liable for shortlanding penalty ... - Issues:1. Transfer of Revision Application to the Tribunal2. Liability of steamer agents for shortlanding penalty3. Evidence required to establish liability under Section 1164. Determination of shortage and liability after discharge5. Time limitation for imposing penalty under Section 116Transfer of Revision Application to the Tribunal:The Revision Application filed against the Order-in-Appeal was transferred to the Tribunal for hearing as an appeal, as per statutory provisions.Liability of Steamer Agents for Shortlanding Penalty:The appellants, steamer agents, were issued a show cause notice for shortlanding lubricating oil. They contended they were agents for ship stores only, not general cargo. However, the Tribunal rejected this, stating lack of evidence supporting their claim. The Collector must establish shortlanding with satisfactory evidence before holding agents liable.Evidence Required to Establish Liability under Section 116:For liability under Section 116, the Collector must prove failure to unload the entire cargo at the destination. The Tribunal noted the absence of evidence on how the shortage was determined. The destination for unloading was disputed, with the appellants arguing that discharge at the dock, with Customs permission, absolved them of liability.Determination of Shortage and Liability After Discharge:The Tribunal emphasized the importance of where the cargo was discharged. If the manifested quantity was unloaded at the dock with Customs approval, liability ends there. The shortage at the storage tanks, not the dock, was incorrectly used as the basis for penalty. Lack of evidence on quantities discharged at different locations affected liability determination.Time Limitation for Imposing Penalty under Section 116:Although no time limit is specified in the Customs Act for imposing penalties under Section 116, the Tribunal found it unreasonable to hold the vessel accountable for shortages after a six-year lapse. The failure to consider the bond executed by the consignee for warehousing cargo further supported the decision to refund any paid penalty.Conclusion:After thorough consideration, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside previous orders and directing refund of any penalty paid within four months. The decision was based on the lack of evidence supporting liability for the alleged shortage and the incorrect basis used for determining penalties.