TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1983 (9) TMI 198
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Orthoxylene by the vessel "STOLD SPAN". The Bill of Lading of the consignment was shown as 1049.8 40 M.T. The quantity discharged as per the shore Storage tank measurement was found to be 1029.784 M.T. Thus, there was a shortage of 20.056 M.T. The appellants were called upon to explain the shortage of 9.558 M.T., after giving without for leaving ocean loss at 1%. The appellants submitted their explanation. Subsequently, the Deputy Collector raised the ocean loss from 1% to 1.3% and adjudged the unaccounted quantity to be 6.409 M.T. He, therefore, imposed a penalty of Rs. 23,396/-on the appellants under Section 116 of the Customs Act, 1962. (hereinafter called the Act.) Feeling aggrieved by the Order of the Deputy Collector, the appellants ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....re could be any leakage or intermediate loss. He, further, pointed out that the survey report of M/s. J.B. Boda Marine & General Survey Agencies Pvt. Ltd. disclosed that there was a continuous survey and it started on board this vessel and until completion of discharge. The report also disclosed total quantity of product received in storage tank. If there had been any leakage in the pipe the surveyors could have noticed the same. Similarly, if any quantity was left behind in the pipeline that could have also been taken into account by the surveyors. Shri Gidwani finally contended that the loss has to be determined on the basis of the quantity received in the shore tank and it is only on that basis the loss has been determined and therefore,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... ship. The quantity received in the storage tank was calculated on the basis of the calibration table available at the Installation. Shri Raman did not dispute the procedure followed for discharge of mineral oil from the ship's tank to the storage tank. He also did not dispute the total quantity received in the storage tank as found by the surveyors. In the said circumstances, the contentions urged on behalf of the appellants that the difference in quantity as recorded to be shortage by the customs could only have been due to leakage in the pipeline or that some quantity of oil must have left behind the pipeline cannot be accepted having regard to the procedure followed for emptying the contents of the pipeline. Further, the contention of S....