https://www.taxtmi.com/css/info/rss_sitemap/rss_feed.css?v=1746094055 https://www.taxtmi.com Business/Tax/Law/GST/India/Taxation/Policies/Legal/Corporate Tax/Personal Tax/Vat Law/Legal Information/Tax Information/Legal Services/Tax Services Tax Management India. Com / MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd. All rights reserved. One stop solution for Direct Taxes and Indirect Taxes https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=772580 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=772580 Violation of provisions of Regulations 5, 10(1)(m) of SCMTR, 2018 and Sections 34, 39, 40, 41 of the Customs Act, 1962 - suspension of operations under Regulation 11 of SCMTR, 2018 - impugned goods covered under two shipping bills for which the LEO copy of shipping bill was not submitted - confiscation - penalty. HELD THAT:- On perusal of Notification No.38/2018-Customs (N.T.) dated 11.05.2018 vide which the Sea Cargo Manifest and Transhipment Regulations (SCMTR), 2018, were notified by the Government, it transpires that SCMTR intends to bring about transparency, predictability of movement, advance collection of information for expeditious clearance of vessels in import/export of goods. The said SCMTR, 2018 supersedes the earlier regulations viz. Import Manifest (Vessels) Regulations, 1971 and Export Manifest (Vessels) Regulation, 1976. The new Regulations stipulate for advance notice by authorized carriers for goods arriving in or being exported out of India through gateway seaports and further movement between Customs stations. They stipulate the obligations, roles and responsibilities for the various stakeholders involved in movement of imported/export goods. All the requirements for declaration of details including the alleged requirements under Regulation 5 ibid in the case of appellants in respect of JNCH Nhava Sheva port would be operational only when the entire SCMTR, 2018 was made fully operations for the specific port of import/export. It is an undisputed fact that the impugned two S/Bs concerning the present case are both dated 07.01.2022, for which the SCMTR, 2008 does not apply on that date as the said regulations was made operational for JNCH, Nhava Sheva port after the expiry of transitional provisions upto 30.11.2024 i.e., w.e.f. from 01.12.2024. Therefore, we are of the considered view, that the impugned order holding that the Regulations 5 and 10(1)(m) ibid have been violated by the appellants does not stand the scrutiny of law. From plain reading of Section 41 ibid that the requirement of submission of Export General Manifest (EGM) before the departure of the vessel is primary responsibility of the person in-charge of the vessel or his agent, as may be specified through notification issued by the Central Government. Therefore, the shipping lines, NVOCC or shipping agent or such other authorised persons alone are responsible for filing the EGM within the prescribed time. The facts of the case also indicate that it is not the case of Revenue, that the EGM for vessel 'MV Thorsky' in respect of its voyage out of India on 09.01.2022 has not been filed. Therefore, there is no case of violation of Section 41 ibid, in the present case. On perusal of the legal provisions of Section 113 ibid, it transpires that essential ingredients of sub-section (d), (f), (g) such as attempt to export contrary to any prohibition; loading of goods in violation of Section 33, 34; loading of export goods in a vessel without obtaining permission of proper office of customs is not present in this case. No evidence for any allegation has been made to this effect, except that the LEO copy of S/Bs have not been given before the sailing of the vessel. Therefore, the alleged violation of sub-sections (d), (f), (g) to Section 113 ibid does not stand the legal scrutiny. Consequently, imposition of penalty under Section 114(iii) ibid also does not sustain. Conclusion - There are no merits in the impugned order passed by the learned Commissioner of Customs (General), JNCH, Nhava Sheva in suspension of the operation of the appellants; for confiscation of export goods and consequent imposition of redemption fine and for imposition of penalties, inasmuch as there is no violation of regulations 5, 10(1)(m) of SCMTR, 2018 and legal provisions under Sections 34, 39, 40, 41, 113(d), 113(f), 113(g) ibid, and the findings in the impugned order is contrary to the facts on record. The impugned order is set aside - appeal allowed in favour of the appellants. Case-Laws Customs Fri, 06 Jun 2025 00:00:00 +0530