Just a moment...
Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the appellant was solely liable for contravention arising from unloading of restricted imported goods at Dighi Port and whether the redemption fine and penalty required interference.
Analysis: The imported goods were subject to a restriction on unloading at Dighi Port, but the shipping line filed the IGM and the Customs authorities granted permission for unloading. Under the Customs framework governing entry, unloading and port restrictions, the master of the vessel cannot unload cargo without Customs permission, and the Department could have objected before permitting unloading. The appellant was nevertheless expected to comply with the prevailing law, so the lapse could not be wholly ignored. On the overall facts, the matter called for leniency rather than full exoneration.
Conclusion: The appellant was not held solely responsible, and the redemption fine and penalty were reduced in favour of the appellant.
Final Conclusion: The order was interfered with only to the extent of reduction of fine and penalty, leaving the finding of contravention undisturbed.
Ratio Decidendi: Where unloading occurs after Customs permission despite a port restriction, responsibility for the lapse may be shared and penalty can be moderated on the facts of the case.