Short-landing penalty under Customs law sustained where the declared import quantity was not disproved by satisfactory evidence.

Penalty for short-landing of imported urea under Section 116 of the Customs Act, 1962 was sustained because the import manifest declared a higher quantity than was actually discharged, and no satisfactory evidence was produced to show that the loaded quantity matched the lower draught survey figure. The court treated the short-landing finding as one of fact, noted that the importer had not sought amendment of the manifest despite the discrepancy, and found no basis to interfere with the concurrent factual conclusions. The challenge to the penalty therefore failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the penalty imposed for short-landing of imported urea under Section 116 of the Customs Act, 1962 was justified.

Analysis: The import manifest declared a higher quantity than what was actually discharged at the port. No evidence was produced to establish that the quantity loaded was in fact the lower quantity reflected in the draught survey. The authorities had concurrently found that the short-landing was proved, and the importer had not sought amendment of the import manifest despite the alleged discrepancy. The finding on short-landing was one of fact, and no ground was made out for interference.

Conclusion: The penalty under Section 116 of the Customs Act, 1962 was rightly imposed and the challenge failed.

Final Conclusion: The appeal was dismissed as the factual finding of short-landing and the consequential penalty were upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: Where short-landing is established on facts and no satisfactory evidence is produced to displace the declared quantity in the import manifest, penalty under Section 116 of the Customs Act, 1962 is sustainable.

---