2013 (6) TMI 589

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....out considering the fact that the department itself had issued "Let Export Order" after examination of the goods on 5th March, 2009. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant M/s. Anchor Logistic are Customs House Agent ("CHA" for short). M/s. J.G.Agro Foods, Patiala are exporters of Indian Basmati Rice. The appellant had filed one shipping bill no. 6275647 dated 23.2.2009 for export of 135 MT of Indian Basmati Rice on behalf of M/s. J.G.Agro Foods, Patiala on the basis of the documents supplied by the said exporter and brought the goods for examination before appropriate authority, Customs House, MP&SEZ, Mundra. On 5.3.2009, the said goods were examined and "Let Export Order" was given on 5.3.2009. Thereafter, the cargo was carted....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....i. This rice was also seized on 6.3.2009. On examination, it was found that it was Non-Basmati rice instead of Basmati rice as declared in the shipping bill. The Tribunal in Appeal No.C/575,580/2009 arising out of OIO NO.KDL/COMMR/18/09-10 dated 24.9.2009 decided on 11.10.2010 held in para-9 as under: "9. As regards penalty imposed onM/s. Anchor Logistic, CHA, we note that there is no evidence on record to show that he was aware of the quality of the rice being non-Basmati rice instead of Basmati rice. Shri Tarunbhai P.Joshi, Executive of CHA, in his statement, deposed that they were not aware of the quality of rice and the explanation regarding arrival of non-Basmati rice cargo may be clarified by the exporter only. We also do not find an....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....graph provides that stuffing of container shall be done in presence of Customs house officer and other representative. If the Customs House Officer was not present and the stuffing was carried out, then it was wrong committed on part of the respondent as no stuffing could be permitted in view of paragraph 10.2 in absence of Customs Officer. Instead of fixing the responsibility on the Customs Officer, the Tribunal has shifted the liability on the clearing house agent, when a specific case of the clearing house agent was that he or his representative were not present at the time of stuffing. Even assuming that the appellant or his representative was present at the time of stuffing of the goods, since the goods was packed in bags, there was no....