https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=293627 Penalty under Section 116 of the Customs Act, 1962 depends on short landing being properly established and the deficiency being unsatisfactorily accounted for within a reasonable time. For bulk liquid cargo, the bill of lading quantity is only prima facie evidence, and the prescribed survey procedure carries particular importance in determining short landing. Where the record lacked a survey report in the required form and there was substantial delay in issuing or adjudicating some notices, interference was justified. The Carriage of Goods by Sea Act did not relieve the importer from customs liability, but the penalty was not sustainable for notices affected by delay and defective determination, while it remained valid for the others. en-us Mon, 09 Mar 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 02 Mar 2021 10:30:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=293627 Penalty under Section 116 of the Customs Act, 1962 depends on short landing being properly established and the deficiency being unsatisfactorily accounted for within a reasonable time. For bulk liquid cargo, the bill of lading quantity is only prima facie evidence, and the prescribed survey procedure carries particular importance in determining short landing. Where the record lacked a survey report in the required form and there was substantial delay in issuing or adjudicating some notices, interference was justified. The Carriage of Goods by Sea Act did not relieve the importer from customs liability, but the penalty was not sustainable for notices affected by delay and defective determination, while it remained valid for the others. Case-Laws Customs Mon, 09 Mar 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=293627