1999 (1) TMI 187

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... (Agencies) Ltd. (C/763/98) respectively are the steamer agent for the vessels at Kandla and Sikka ports. R.C. Reddy (C/760/98) and Binod Kuriakose (C/762/98) respectively are employees of Intra Trade Pvt. Ltd. and South India Corporation (Agencies) Ltd. 2. In the impugned order, the Commissioner has imposed penalties under Section 112 of Rs. 35.00 lacs on the first appellant, Rs. 25.00 lacs on the second appellant, Rs. 20.00 lacs on third appellants, Rs. 25.00 lacs on the fourth appellant, Rs. 20.00 lacs each on the fifth and seventh appellants and Rs. 25.00 lacs on the sixth appellant. He has ordered confiscation of Bow Sea and Owl Trader with option to redeem them on payment of fine of Rs. 10.00 crores and Rs. 5.00 crores respectiv....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 70o-05' was not within the jurisdiction of Kandla port. Its precise location is not mentioned in the notice nor in the order. It is stated to be within the Indian Customs waters and near Jordia port under the jurisdiction of Jamnagar Customs. In any case, it was about 1.5 nautical mile south of the southern limits of Kandla port. It was also discovered that the manifest filed for Bow Sea for Sikka did not include the cargo carried on the ship for unloading at Jebel Ali. A shortage was discovered between the quantities of some of the goods carried on board the Owl Trader and what was actually discharged at Kandla. Notice was issued proposing confiscation of the goods, ships and penalties on the owners, masters of the vessels, the steamer ag....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Neither the notice nor the impugned order mentions within whose jurisdiction the transfer taken place. Neither side was unable to determine this jurisdiction. There is no doubt that if the proper officer has been approached, permission would have been granted. Such transhipments are a matter of common occurence. In the absence of any mala fides, as in this case, the permission would not have been refused. The contravention therefore would become purely technical. 6. The departmental representative is at pains to emphasise that even if the appellant believed that the position of the ship was in the limits of Kandla, it is Section 8 and not Section 54 of the Act that would apply, because that would not be a place approved by the Commi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ior to issue of notice, the Assistant Commissioner of Customs, Kandla had already demanded duties on identical quantities of these goods on the ground that there was a difference between the quantities carried on board Bow Sea and Owl Trader and duty had been demanded thereon. Since the matter had therefore already been adjudicated and the duty also paid, the Commissioner's order in this regard therefore cannot be sustained. 9. No reasons are advanced in the notice for imposition on penalties on the agents at Kandla and Sikka and on their employees. These agents and the employees had filed applications for transhipment, import general manifest etc. Since the penalties on this account has been imposed on the master, it is difficult to ....