1999 (1) TMI 202

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....93 on night petrol, officer of M & P Division, Rummaging Section of the Preventive Collectorate, Bombay, noticed the barge "Daryalaxmi" along side the ship M.V. Ali-Hadi anchored at J-3 location on stream. Shri J.J. Mishra, person in charge of the ship was supervising the off loading approximately 28 tons of M.S. Scrap from the ship to the barge. Ship MV-Ali-Hadi was of foreign origin, registered in Kingstown and engaged in foreign trade. Enquiry with Mishra revealed that scrap removed was generated from during the course of repairs of the ship which is a part of scrap generated. The repairs of the ship was done at Mumbai by the Appellant. J.J. Mishra was its employee. He did not produce any custom duty clearance document on demand, nor leg....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....manifest under Section 30 of Customs Act, 1962 as required, and Sections 32 to 34 and 36 are violated by the unloading from the ship. Deputy Collector had held that even under Sections 111(d) and (f) seized scrap was liable for confiscation, which is not confirmed in appeal. Captain of the ship and steamer agents have contravened Section 30(3) read with 147 and 149 of Customs Act, 1962. Owner of the barge is exonerated for want of evidence. They are confirmed in the appeal. 3. In support of the appeal, Shri B.G. Sarang, the learned Consultant has argued that importer is not concerned with Sections 32 to 36 of Customs Act, 1962, i.e. filing of manifest, but Master of the Ship, steamer agent or owner or captain, as boat note is to be ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... paras. 6. The grounds in appeal memorandum, shows that the Appellant has not properly understood the impugned order. It has accepted the case of the Appellant that seized scrap cannot be confiscated under Sections 111(d) and (f) of Customs Act, 1962 and appellant is not liable to file manifest. Still the grounds canvass the same. Section 35 of the Customs Act, 1962, though not invoked in this case, is brought into picture by the Appellant, regarding the boat note. The aggrieved part of the whole case under the impugned order is the confiscation of M.S. scraps as Appellant have not filed bill of entry for customs clearance, though they are concerned with it. This is an admitted fact. The impugned order has considered all the materia....