Short-landing shortage explained by excess cargo on the same voyage, so customs penalty was not warranted.

A shortage on short-landing of cargo was treated as satisfactorily explained where unmanifested quantity of the same commodity had already landed on the same voyage, the out-turn report did not contemporaneously record short-landing at unloading, and the excess quantity could be adjusted against the alleged deficiency. The fact that the goods were not offered in good condition did not displace the relevance of the excess quantity received on that voyage. On that basis, penalty under Section 116 of the Customs Act, 1962 was not warranted.

---

---

Issues: Whether the alleged shortage on short-landing of cargo was satisfactorily explained so as to exclude penalty under Section 116 of the Customs Act, 1962.

Analysis: The order records that some unmanifested quantity of the same commodity had in fact landed by the same ship voyage, that the out-turn report did not show contemporaneous recording of any short-landing at the time of unloading, and that the excess quantity could be adjusted against the alleged shortage. It was also noted that the goods were not offered in good condition and that this circumstance did not negate the relevance of the excess quantity already received on the same voyage.

Conclusion: The shortage was held to have been satisfactorily explained and the penalty under Section 116 of the Customs Act, 1962 was not warranted.

---