TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether penalty under Section 116 of the Customs Act, 1962 for alleged short landing could be sustained when the authorities proceeded solely on the basis of the port out-turn report without properly considering the bill of lading, ullage survey, tally sheets and other relevant material; (ii) Whether proceedings for penalty under Section 116 had to conform to a reasonable opportunity of hearing, including a fair opportunity to adduce evidence and summon witnesses under Section 124 of the Customs Act, 1962.
Issue (i): Whether penalty under Section 116 of the Customs Act, 1962 for alleged short landing could be sustained when the authorities proceeded solely on the basis of the port out-turn report without properly considering the bill of lading, ullage survey, tally sheets and other relevant material.
Analysis: The liability under Section 116 arises only when goods loaded for import are not unloaded at the destination and the deficiency is not satisfactorily accounted for. The ascertainment of short landing cannot be treated as mechanical or automatic on the basis of a delayed out-turn report alone. The relevant materials may include the bill of lading, ullage reports at loading and discharge, tally sheets prepared at the time of landing, survey reports, and other contemporaneous records. The port out-turn report is not conclusive in every case, particularly where goods may be lost, damaged, auctioned, or otherwise dealt with after discharge while in port custody. The authorities must apply the correct material to determine whether any deficiency existed at the time of unloading and whether it is attributable to the carrier.
Conclusion: Penalty could not be sustained on the basis adopted by the authorities, and the impugned levy was set aside in favour of the assessee.
Issue (ii): Whether proceedings for penalty under Section 116 had to conform to a reasonable opportunity of hearing, including a fair opportunity to adduce evidence and summon witnesses under Section 124 of the Customs Act, 1962.
Analysis: Penalty proceedings under the Customs Act are quasi-judicial in nature. A reasonable opportunity of hearing under Section 124 includes an opportunity to produce evidence in support of the defence and, where appropriate, to seek summoning of witnesses. Discretion remains with the Customs Officer to regulate evidence according to the facts of the case, but that discretion must be exercised judicially and not arbitrarily. A refusal to permit meaningful rebuttal of the charge would be inconsistent with fair procedure.
Conclusion: The proceeding had to conform to fair hearing requirements, and the impugned orders were unsustainable where the defence was not fairly considered.
Final Conclusion: The levy of penalty under Section 116 was quashed, the petitions succeeded, and the Court issued guidance for future customs and port practice to ensure that short landing is determined on proper contemporaneous materials and after fair hearing.
Ratio Decidendi: Short landing for the purpose of Section 116 must be determined on the basis of relevant contemporaneous evidence and not by treating the port out-turn report as conclusive, and penalty proceedings must satisfy the requirement of a reasonable opportunity of hearing under Section 124.
TaxTMI 
