AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (4) TMI 345
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pellant has filed three shipping bills nos. 5537006 dated 25/08/2006 dated 25/08/2007, 5538875 dated 27/08/2007 and 5538809 dated 27/08/2007 for the cargo '60% cotton 40% poly processed woven M/UPS 250 TC CVC sheet sets and pillow" valued at Rs. 457161/-, Rs. 435710/- and Rs. 2983356/- respectively and stuffed in the container No. INBU 4831167. The person incharge of M/s. APL Agencies India Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai loaded the impugned container on the vessel MV APL Yokohama which sailed on 26/08/2004 whereas the 'Let Export Order' (LeO) was granted by the proper officer on 27/08/2007 in all the shipping bills. The goods were exported without 'Let Export Order' of the proper officer under Section 51 of the Customs Act, 1962 and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ommission of any act, that is on the part of the shipping line and not the appellant. He submits that the goods were admittedly loaded on the vessel on Sunday and, therefore, the appellant is nowhere concerned about the activity of loading the container on the vessel on a Sunday which is a holiday. For this reason also, the appellant could not have been implicated in the present case. 3.1. He submits that the appellant cleared the stuffed container from its factory premises and, thereafter the appellant has not control over the movement of container in the port area. The CHA, on receipt of the container along with the documents, handed over the physical custody of the goods to the shipping line and it is the shipping line who undertake to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ue reiterates the findings of the impugned order. He further submits that for any omission or commission in contravention of any provisions of the Act by the shipping line, the exporter is responsible for the reason that the shipping line is acting as an agent of the exporter. He further submits that, as regards the loading of the container on the vessel, the exporter is having complete knowledge, therefore, the offence of loading of container on the vessel and sailing of the vessel without obtaining the 'Let Export Order', the exporter is equally responsible and liable for penalty. He place reliance on the judgment in the case of Nichrome India Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Customs (Export), Nhava Sheva 2010 (251) ELT 147. 5. I have ca....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ase of Soham Logistics Pvt. Ltd. the Tribunal held as follows: "8. The main thrust of the allegation is on the shipping line, which allowed the goods being loaded on the vessel without the proper documentation and without the supervision of the proper officer. It is true fact that when the goods are gated in, the goods are beyond the control of the CHA and the exporter. The reliance paced by the learned SDR in the cases of Sudarshan Cargo in appeals No. C/650, 809 & 1057/08 (cited supra at Sr. No. iv) and Zenith Rubber & Plastic Works (supra), the exporter was also held liable for such a breach. In this case, it was found that exporter completed all the necessary formalities in exportation of the goods and held that they have not faulted a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ot sustainable. The same is set aside to this extent. The appeals filed by the exporter and the CHA are allowed." 6.3. In the case of Venkatesh Agencies vs. Commissioner of Customs (Export), Nhava Sheva the Tribunal held as under: "6. Considering the submissions and perused the record. On perusal of the record, I find that after going to the port area, the CHA and exporter have no control over the goods as held by the Tribunal in the case of N. Karim & Sons. Therefore, I hold that the appellant namely M/s. Falcon International and M/s. Venkatesh Agencies being exporter and CHA respectively are not liable to be penalised under Section 114(iii) of the Customs Act, 1962. Accordingly penalty on both the appellants have been dropped. As the ap....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... view taken by the Tribunal. The appeal is thus without any substance, hence dismissed for want of substantial question of law. No order as to costs". 6.5. In the case of Apollo Tyres Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Customs (Export), the Tribunal held as under: "5. I have considered the rival submissions. I find that shipping bills were presented under the EDP system almost two days prior and further the goods were stuffed under the supervision of Excise/Customs authorities in the factory. In the present case as per the endorsement, the goods were loaded on the ship under the supervision of the Customs authorities at port. In view of the fact that exporter did not have any control over loading of container on the vessel, I find it is a fit case ....