TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2007 (11) TMI 111
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d various items and filed IGM and Bills of Entry. The landing remarks in all the three cases mentioned that the entire quantities have been unloaded from the vessel and custody was handed over to the Mumbai Port Trust. But at the time of delivery, a survey was conducted and it was found that there was shortage of the goods before they were given out of charge. Show cause notice was issued under Section 116 of the Customs Act, 1962 calling upon the current appellant to show cause as to why the duty involved should not be recovered from them as the imported goods were in their custody. The appellant contested the show cause notice on various grounds and mainly on the ground that the show cause notice is barred by limitation by virtue of the p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ree cases, the show cause notices were issued beyond a period of seven days. It is also his submission that there is no allegation in the show cause notice that the goods were pilfered whilst in the custody of the appellant. He submits that reliance placed by the Commissioner of Customs is misplaced that they are covered by the Major Port Trust Act, which is statute in it self. It was his submission that in an identical issue the Division Bench of the Tribunal, vide order No. A/308/WZB/2007/C-I, dated 20-4-2007 [2007 (216) E.LT. 47 (Tri. - Mumbai)] has clearly absolved the Mumbai Port Trust from payment of duty and from imposition of penalty. 5. The learned SDR on the other hand submits that it is an admitted fact that there was a ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ration of the Public Notice dated 11-10- 2000 is stayed by the Hon'ble High Court, the Revenue cannot deemed any duty by operating the said notice dated 11-10-2000. 7. Considered the submission made by both sides and perused the re cords. The issue involved in this case is whether as the custodian of the goods i.e. Mumbai Port Trust (appellant) is liable to pay the duty liability on the goods which were found short when given out of charge. It is an admitted fact that there is no allegation nor there is any complaint lodged for pilferage in these three appeals. In absence of any complaint of pilferage of the imported goods, the responsibility of the duty liability cannot be shifted from the importer to the custodian of the goods. I find ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the Tribunal in its order No. A/308/WZB/2007/C-I dated 20-4-2007 [2007 (216) E.L.T. 47 (Tri. - Mum.)] has held as under : - "8 There are other glaring discrepancies regarding weight and therefore mis-declaration of the cargo by the shippers cannot be ruled out. In view of this, we hold that Revenue has failed to conclusively establish that the goods were pilfered while in the custody of the Mumbai Port Trust. In view the same, liability cannot be fixed on the Mumbai Port Trust as custodian in terms of provisions of 45(3) of Customs Act, 1962. In view of this, we uphold the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) in setting aside the demand against Mumbai Port Trust without going into the question of as to whethe....