2007 (9) TMI 145

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... statement to the Superintendent of Customs Preventive) admitted the mistake and stated that the tug took over the Barge AL-JABER 30 from Sandakan, Malaysia on 13-4-2004 to hand it over to its owner at Abudhabi and they had entered Cochin Port for bunkering. He further stated that it was his first arrival to India and he was not aware of the rules of the country and prayed for taking a lenient view. Shri George Mathew, Managing Partner of M/s. Ancheril Agencies, Steamer Agents for the tug AL-JABER 6 in his statement also admitted that they had committed a mistake by not declaring the Barge in the Manifest of the vessel AL-JABER 6 and requested to condone the mistake. They submitted that there was no intention to enter into Indian Customs wa....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rs v. Collector reported in 1997 (96) E.L.T. 27 (Mad.). He also relies on the ruling rendered by the Tribunal in the case of Hari & Co. v. Commissioner of Customs, Trichy [2007 (213) E.L.T. 536 (Tri. -Chennai)] wherein the penalty imposed on Steamer Agent for non-declaration of goods due to negligence was set aside as there was no intention on the part of the appellant to remove the goods/cargo to Indian Port for sale in the local market. The learned Counsel also relies on the ruling of the Apex Court in the case of Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. State of Orissa reported in 1978 (2) E.L.T. J159 (S.C.)] wherein it was held that when there was only a technical or venial breach of law, penalty is not imposable. 4. The learned DR defends the order ....