TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Applicants succeed in short-landing case, doubts raised on department evidence. B-form absence crucial.</h1> The judgment ruled in favor of the applicants in an alleged short-landing case. Despite a penalty imposed, the evidence presented by the applicants was ... Short landing Issues: Alleged short-landing case, Penalty imposition, Reliance on evidence, Non-production of B-form, Refund claim, Collector's observation, Initiation of action, Reliability of evidence, Benefit of doubtAlleged short-landing case:The judgment addresses the alleged short-landing case against Line No. 10 of the applicants. The applicants contested the allegations, stating that the case landed in sound condition and there was no short-landing. They argued that the insurance survey was conducted nearly three months after the case was landed, making it unreasonable to hold them responsible for any shortages noticed post-landing.Penalty imposition:A penalty of Rs. 30,954/- was imposed on the applicants for alleged shortages in the manifested contents of the case. However, the submissions made by the applicants were deemed prima facie acceptable. The insurance survey indicated the possibility of material shortages due to various factors, including impacts during loading/unloading/voyage and chances of pilferage. The absence of short-landing against Line No. 10 further supported the applicants' case.Reliance on evidence:The department's case for short-landing was primarily based on the insurance survey held after the landing of the case. The reliance on the landing condition report of the CPT, as well as the absence of the duplicate Bill of Entry, raised questions about the evidence supporting the allegations. The notices issued by the department post the survey were crucial in initiating the action against the applicants.Non-production of B-form:The department highlighted the non-production of the B-form by the applicants as evidence of short-landing. However, the applicants clarified that the B-form is issued only in cases of short-landing, and as there was no short-landing, no B-form was issued.Refund claim:The refund claim file of the Customs House revealed that the importer's claim was not based on the production of the B-form. The absence of the B-form indicated that there was no short-landing, as a B-form would have been issued in such cases.Collector's observation:The Collector (Appeals) noted discrepancies in the evidence, highlighting that the action was initiated based solely on the CPT's endorsement regarding the case landing in an empty condition. This observation raised concerns about the reliability of the evidence supporting the short-landing allegations.Initiation of action:The initiation of action against the applicants was primarily based on the CPT's endorsement on the reverse of the Bill of Entry. This endorsement served as a crucial piece of evidence for the department in pursuing the case of short-landing.Reliability of evidence:The judgment emphasized the importance of temporal proximity of evidence to the event of unloading for establishing the reliability of claims of shortages. Delayed reports and evidence from unloading raised doubts about the accuracy of the allegations, especially when the goods remained intact.Benefit of doubt:Considering the totality of evidence and the lack of concrete proof of short-landing, the government granted the benefit of doubt to the applicants. It was concluded that no short-landing had occurred in this case, entitling the party to consequential relief. The revision application was allowed, favoring the applicants.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
