TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (8) TMI 31
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n fine of Rs. 10.00 Lakh imposed with respect to excess quantity of fuel oil, diesel oil and lube oil found in the ship stores in the vessel. In addition penalty of Rs. 10.00 Lakhs has also been imposed upon the Master of the vessel under section 112(a) and 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962. Appeal No.C-577/09 has been filed by M/s.Devi Shipping Agency with respect to penalty of Rs. 2.00 Lakhs imposed under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962. 2. Shri Sukhendu Bhattacharrya (Advocate) appearing on behalf of his client argued that the vessel M.V. Medi Firenze was anchored at Sandheads on 05.08.2009 whereas Vessel Arrival Report was filed on 11.08.2009. That in the Vessel Arrival Report, quantity of lube oil was declared as 2,500 ltrs, fue....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....kar, AC(AR) appearing on behalf of the Revenue argued that as per IGM filed the quantity of furnace oil, diesel oil and lube oil was declared as 997.34 MT, 40.50 MT and 2500 ltrs. respectively. That on rummaging of vessel and actual verification the quantities of these shipping stores were found to be 1022.30 MT, 41.60 MT and 25,220 ltrs. respectively. Ld.AR made the Bench go through internal page 10 of the Order-in-Original dated 07.09.2009, passed by the adjudicating authority, to argue that mis-declaration was detected only during rummaging of the vessel and appellant at no stage sought amendment of IGM. Both the Appellants made request for release of the vessel and undertook payment of fine and penalty, if any, imposed upon the Appellan....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....but M/s.Devi Shipping Agency has given a wrong declaration in the IGM with respect to lube oil which is only a clerical error. It is observed from the findings given by the adjudicating authority at internal page 8 of the Order-in-Original dated 07.09.2009 that not only the quantity of lube oil was wrongly given, but even the quantities of furnace oil and diesel oil were found to be in excess of what was given by the Master of the vessel in the vessel arrival report. One of the arguments given by the ld.Advocate of the Appellants is that vessel was anchored at Sandheads on 05.08.2009 whereas vessel arrival report was filed on 11.08.2009. That the difference is due to oil consumption when the vessel was anchored at the Sandheads from 05.08.2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., Hyderabad-II (supra) is not applicable to the present case on facts because it is not coming out from the arguments made by the ld.Advocate whether the undertakings, similar to given by the Appellants in the present proceedings, were also given by the importers in the case of Bhagyanagar Metals Ltd. vs. CCE, Hyderabad-II (supra). Accordingly it is held that the redemption fine and penalties are correctly imposed by the adjudicating authority upon Appellant Mr.Chen Gao Sheng (Master of vessel M.V. Medi Firenze) by holding that undertakings given before the adjudicating authority are legally enforceable to recover redemption fine and penalties. 8. So far as imposition of penalty upon the Appellant M/s.Devi Shipping Agency is concerne....