Short landing cannot be inferred from damaged landing remarks alone when shortage at landing is not proved.

Penalty under Section 116 of the Customs Act, 1962 was held unsustainable where short landing was not proved by the available landing remarks and related records. Damaged or torn outer packages, without evidence that the contents were missing at the time of landing, were insufficient to infer shortage, especially where the port certificate did not record similar remarks against the item concerned. For the other item, the shortage was detected only after a survey conducted ten days after landing, so an intervening cause such as pilferage could not be ruled out. On that material, short landing was not established and the penalty was set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether penalty under Section 116 of the Customs Act, 1962 was sustainable on the alleged short landing of goods manifested on board the vessel.

Analysis: The landing remarks relating to one item showed only that the outer packages were damaged or torn and did not establish that the contents were missing at the time of landing. Where the port certificate specifically did not assign similar remarks to the item in question, the inference of short landing could not be sustained. As regards the other item, the shortage was discovered only after a survey conducted ten days after landing, so loss by pilferage or some other intervening cause during that period could not be ruled out. On the material available, landing remarks alone were insufficient to prove short landing.

Conclusion: The penalty under Section 116 of the Customs Act, 1962 was not justified and was set aside.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded and the impugned penalty order was annulled.

Ratio Decidendi: Short landing cannot be inferred merely from damaged or torn landing remarks when the evidence does not establish shortage at the time of landing and an intervening cause during the post-landing period cannot be excluded.

---