TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2002 (11) TMI 503
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....noj Sanklecha, learned Advocate for the appellants states that in this case the appellants had waived issue of show cause notice and after a hearing, the Commissioner of Customs (Imports), Mumbai has passed an order imposing a penalty of Rs. 1.60 lakh on the appellants under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962. He states that the issue relates to not manifesting one container due to oversight for....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nbsp; Pratibha Processors v. Union of India - 1996 (88) E.L.T. 12 (S.C) (4) Killick Air Courier & Forwarders Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai - 1998 (97) E.L.T. 182 (Tribunal) 2. Shri M.H. Shaikh, learned J.D.R. appearing for Revenue supports the impugned order and states that since the container has not been manifested, the Steamer Agents are liable for penalty under Sec....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... contains a provision that such a manifest may be delivered before the arrival of the vessel. Normally such manifests are filed by Steamer Agents on behalf of the master of the vessel. 4. Section 32 of the Customs Act states that imported goods are not to be unloaded unless it is mentioned in the import manifest. Section 111(f) authorises confiscation of unmanifested goods. Section 112 makes....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Section 112. In the instant case, the master of the vessel was required to include the container in the manifest. The Steamer agents have taken on themselves to file the manifest on behalf of the master of the vessel as his agent. On their undertaking to discharge all liability including penal liability, the vessel is allowed port clearance in advance. If the steamer agents do not undertake to dis....