TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (9) TMI 119
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....00/-. These containers were called back on 10.6.2008 by the shipping agency and examined on 18.6.2008 by the Customs authorities and on examination, the containers were found to contain 960 bags of Basmati rice as per invoice. Since these three loaded containers had sailed out and attempted to export the goods without proper document and LEO, the same were seized for violation of the Customs Act as the goods were liable for confiscation under Section 113(g) of the Customs Act. Later on, the goods were allowed to be exported on provisional basis on execution of bond by the exporter and duly supported by a bank guarantee furnished by the exporter. A show cause notice was issued to the exporter, M/s. Blossom Grocery & Food India Pvt. Ltd., the CHA, M/s. Delta Logistics and the shipping line, M/s. Neptune Container Line & Logistics Pvt. Ltd., asking them to show cause why the goods, Basmati rice, exported without proper Customs documentation should not be confiscated under Section 113(g) of the Customs Act and why penalty under Sections 114 and 117 of the Customs Act should not be imposed on them and why the bank guarantee furnished by the exporter should not be adjusted against the pe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....CC(E) vs. Kusters Calico Machinery Ltd. 2010 (257) ELT 368 (Bom.); (ii) Mohini Organics Pvt. Ltd. vs. CC(E), Nhava Sheva 2009 (240) ELT 589 (Tri.-Mumbai); (iii) N. Karim & Sons vs. CC(E), Nhava Sheva 2010 (251) ELT 444 (Tri.-Mumbai); (iv) Hindustan Steel Ltd. vs. State of Orissa 1978 (2) ELT (J 159) (SC); (v) Emirates Shipping Agencies (I) Pvt. Ltd. vs. CC(E), Nhava Sheva 2009 (243) ELT 689 (Tri.-Mumbai). 4. The learned counsel for the CHA submitted that insofar as the role of CHA is concerned, the Commissioner has given finding in paragraphs 23 and 24 of the impugned order and in paragraph 25 the learned Commissioner himself has admitted that the CHA had informed the shipping line to ship the goods on the next vessel whereas the Commissioner has given his finding in direct contradiction of his observation in the order. There is nothing on record to show that the CHA had asked the shipping line to get the goods without any document and load them in the vessel. On the contrary, the appellant-CHA had informed the shipping line to ship the goods on the next vessel. He, therefore, prayed that the appellant-CHA cannot be penalized becaus....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Said vs. CCE, Cochin 1999 (110) ELT 496 (Ker.). 6. The learned counsel for the shipping line has made a plea that the penalty on the shipping line has been imposed under Section 114 of the Customs Act. He submitted that under Section 114, there are three situations for imposition of penalty. Under Section 114(ii), the penalty is imposable in case of dutiable goods other than prohibited goods to a penalty not exceeding duty sought to be evaded or five thousand rupees whichever is greater. He submitted that since the goods in question were dutiable goods and not prohibited goods, their case will fall under Section 114(ii) and under this provision penalty cannot be imposed more than the duty involved or Rs.5,000/- whichever is greater. 7. The learned DR appearing for the Revenue submitted that in this case the goods have been exported without completing the Customs formalities by the exporter, the CHA and the shipping line. He referred to Section 50 of the Customs Act whereunder the shipping bill is to be filed in respect of the export goods and under Section 51 of the Customs Act, whenever the proper officer is satisfied that the goods entered for export are not p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sides, I find that in this case penalties have been imposed by the Commissioner on the exporter, the CHA and the shipping line under Section 114 of the Customs Act as the goods in this case were loaded on the vessel without obtaining the Let Export Order. Redemption fine was also imposed in respect of the goods exported by the exporter. The fact that the goods were loaded on the vessel and the vessel had left without obtaining the LEO is not disputed by any of the appellants. As regards the exporter and the CHA, under Section 50 they are required to complete all the formalities and get the assessed copy of the shipping bill from the Customs officer for further loading of the goods on the vessel, which has not been done in this case. Therefore, the contravention of Section 50 by the exporter and the CHA is clearly established. Similarly, under Sections 40 and 41, the person in charge of the shipping line is required to have a copy of the order from the Customs before loading the goods on the vessel and he was supposed to deliver the copy of the export manifest to the department, which has also not been done before the goods left in the vessel. Therefore, the contravention of Section....