1983 (6) TMI 100 - AT - Customs

Appellate Tribunal Upholds Penalty for Shortlanding of Grain Products

The Appellate Tribunal upheld the decision of the Appellate Collector, affirming the penalty imposed for the shortlanding of grain products. Despite the ... Short landing of goods Issues:1. Imposition of penalty for shortlanding of grain products.2. Discrepancy in manifested quantity at different ports.3. Appeal against the penalty imposed by the Deputy Collector.4. Appeal before the Appellate Collector.5. Rejection of appeal by the Appellate Collector.6. Revision petition before the Central Government.7. Hearing before the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Calcutta.Analysis:The appeal in this case arose from the imposition of a penalty of Rs. 83,508 by the Deputy Collector of Customs for the shortlanding of 968 bags of grain products. The vessel carrying the consignments discharged varying quantities at different Indian ports, leading to discrepancies in the manifested quantity. The appellants contended that after adjusting for excess discharge at one port and sweepings collected at another, the actual shortlanding was 968 bags, not 1299 bags as claimed by the authorities.Before the Appellate Collector, the appellants argued that a joint survey revealed the shortlanding at Calcutta port was only 706 bags, not 1299 bags. However, the Appellate Collector rejected this claim, advising the appellants to address the matter with the Port Trust Authorities for an amended out-turn report. The appeal was dismissed due to the lack of an amended report despite the lapse of time.The appellants then filed a Revision Petition before the Central Government, which was transferred to the Appellate Tribunal for consideration. During the hearing, the appellants argued that reliance on the out-turn report was unjustified, citing discrepancies in the statutory records maintained by the Port Trust Authorities. They contended that the nature of proof required in such proceedings should be akin to criminal cases, where stringent evidence is necessary for penalty imposition.The Tribunal noted the inconsistency in the appellants' claims regarding the shortlanding quantity throughout the proceedings. The only supporting document provided was a survey report from a private agency, which the appellants relied on to assert a shortlanding of 706 bags. However, the Tribunal found insufficient evidence to overturn the Appellate Collector's decision, emphasizing the statutory authority of the Port Trust report over a private survey report to which the concerned parties were not privy.Ultimately, the Tribunal concluded that there was no merit in the appeal and rejected it, upholding the decision of the Appellate Collector regarding the penalty for shortlanding of grain products.