1998 (10) TMI 78 - CGOVT - Customs

Court upholds penalties on Singapore Airlines for non-accountal of goods loaded, rejecting revision applications.

The court rejected the revision applications filed by M/s. Singapore Airlines, holding them liable for penalties under Section 116 of the Customs Act, ... Show cause notice - Short landing of goods Issues Involved:1. Legality of show cause notices issued to the Airlines instead of the person-in-charge of the aircraft.2. Determination of whether the alleged short landings are actual short landings or pilferages.Detailed Analysis:Issue 1: Legality of Show Cause NoticesThe primary issue concerns whether the show cause notices issued to the Airlines, instead of the person-in-charge of the aircraft, are legally sustainable. According to Section 2(31) of the Customs Act, 1962, the 'person-in-charge' in relation to an aircraft is defined as the commander or pilot-in-charge of the aircraft. Section 116 of the Customs Act holds the person-in-charge responsible for any non-accountal of goods loaded in a conveyance but not unloaded at the appropriate destination. Thus, the show cause notice should be issued to the person-in-charge of the aircraft.However, the practice at IGI Airport, New Delhi, reveals that the ground staff of the concerned airlines handles the cargo manifest and the Import General Manifest (IGM), which does not carry the signature of the pilot/commander. The ground staff, appointed by the airlines, retrieves the document and presents it to the proper customs officer. The ground staff is responsible for offloading and transporting the cargo to the custodian/bailee. Given this practice, it is inferred that the airlines have self-appointed themselves as agents on behalf of the person-in-charge. Consequently, the airlines, having accepted responsibility from the beginning and participated in the procedure relating to the accountal of import cargo, are liable for any action under the Customs Act, including Section 116.Issue 2: Determination of Short Landings or PilferagesThe second issue revolves around whether the alleged short landings are actual short landings or pilferages. At the time of loading into the aircraft, the person-in-charge is handed over packages bound into pallets/containers by the ground staff of the airlines at the load port. These pallets/containers are unloaded at the destination, and the ground staff of the airlines takes charge of them and hands them over to the custodian, the Airport Authority of India (AAI). According to Customs Public Notice No. 30/86, it is the responsibility of the airlines' representative to bring the cargo to the Cargo Import side under Customs escort. A Segregation Report is prepared and countersigned by representatives of the airlines, AAI, and the Customs Import Freight Officer.The segregation report forms the basis for ascertaining the cargo short landed. The responsibility of the airlines does not cease until the cargo is handed over to the custodian. If segregation is delayed or cannot be done, it should be reported to the AAI to resolve the issue mutually. In the absence of any formal complaint regarding alleged pilferage after landing but before segregation, the allegations of pilferage are not tenable. Therefore, the cargo short accounted for is accepted as short landed.Conclusion:The government rejects the six revision applications filed by M/s. Singapore Airlines, holding that the airlines, having acted as self-appointed agents on behalf of the person-in-charge, are liable for the penalties imposed under Section 116 of the Customs Act, 1962. The alleged short landings are accepted as actual short landings, and the penalties imposed are upheld.