TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2009 (4) TMI 283
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....missioner of Customs (Export), JNCH, Nhava Sheva. The Commissioner, vide the impugned order, held that the impugned goods exported under Shipping Bill No. 4527414 dated 19-8-2006 valued at Rs. 63,28,280/- are liable to confiscation under Section 113(g) of the Customs Act, 1962. Accordingly, he ordered for confiscation of the goods, though the goods were not physically available. However, he gave an option to the exporter to redeem the goods on payment of fine of Rs. 5,00,000/- under Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962. He also imposed penalty of Rs. 5,00,000/- on the exporter under Section 114(iii) of Customs Act, 1962. He also imposed penalty of Rs. 10,00,000/- on the Shipping Line under Section 114(iii) of Customs Act, 1962. 2. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ficer of the Customs. The said documents were taken to the proper officer of Customs, who would endorse the "Let Export Order" on the Shipping Bill. Since 20-8-2006 was a holiday (Sunday), the CHA could present the documents before the proper officer for granting the "Let Export Order" only on 21-8-2006. Soon after the "Let Export Order" was endorsed on the Shipping Bill, the CHA had forwarded the Exporter's copy of the Shipping Bill to the Shipping Line so that the container could be loaded on the Vessel M.V. Kota Periwara, which was to sail on 24-8-2006. 4.1 From the above sequence of events, it is clear that the exporter did not have any intention to export the container in any manner, which is in contravention of the Customs Act, 196....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... bond/undertaking at the time of its export. The goods in dispute were not available for confiscation at the time of passing the impugned order. It is seen that one of the question of law raised in the appeal filed by the Revenue before Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Raja Impex Pvt. Ltd. was whether redemption fine under Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962 can be imposod where the goods were neither available for confiscation nor clearec1 under bond/undertaking. The Hon'ble High Court, after considering the Apex Court's judgment in the case of Weston Components reported in 2000 (115) E.L.T. 278 (S.C.), held that redemption fine cannot be imposed in the absence of the goods, which had already been released by the Customs autho....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ty has been sustained on the exporter/CHA on the ground that the exporter did not make any genuine attempt to stop the containers from loading and the CHA did not inform the Shipping Line not to load the containers on the vessel, when they were aware that the Let Export Order was still pending. However, it appears that this judgment of the Tribunal has not been accepted by the affected parties and the same is under challenge before the Hon'ble Bombay High Court. I find that if the decision is under challenge, its correctness is in jeopardy and it does not have precedent value, as has been held by the Tribunal in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai-II v. BOC India Ltd. reported in 2007 (212) E.L.T. 222 (Tri.-Chennai). For hol....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...." of the proper officer of Customs is handed over to them by the Shippers or his agent. Whereas in the instant case, the Shipping Line had loaded the container on board the Vessel M.V. Deja Bhum on 20-8-2006 without even receiving the exporter's copy of the Shipping Bill. The Vessel M.V. Deja Bhum sailed on 20-8-2006. As per the Shipping Bill, the container was to be loaded on Vessel M.V. Kota Periwara, which was to sail on 24-8-2006, whereas the Shipping Line had loaded the container on vessel M.V. Deja Bhum, which sailed on 20-8-2006. It is for the Shipping Line to take on board only those containars in respect of which "Let Export Order" is given by the proper officer of Customs. Thus it is evident that the Shipping Line have knowingly l....