TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (9) TMI 619
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cating Authority as confirmed by the Appellate Authority as slightly modified by the Revisional Authority involving shortlanding of goods is questioned. Though the facts of the case appear to be complicated, the controversy involved lies in a very narrow campus. 3. The petitioner is a steamer agent and they acted on behalf of a Company who had imported Acid Grade Flurospar from China through the port at Cuddalore for the importer M/s.TANFAC Industries Limited, Cuddalore. The total quantity of the discharged cargo as per the landing certificate dated 30.04.1994 issued by the Superintendent of Central Excise, Custom House, Cuddalore, was 6110.376 M.T. and the quantity shortlanded was ascertained to be 237.684 M.T. The import duty which would....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....housand three hundred and sixty six only) Assistant Commissioner, Customs division: Cuddalore. 4. Thus, as per the working sheet, it is seen that moisture allowance was calculated at 6.47%, but, this was calculated only on the shortlanded quantity and allowance was given at 15.212 M.T. The petitioner submitted their objections and the Adjudicating Authority, by order dated 29.11.1999, after considering the facts, was convinced that the allowance for moisture should have been calculated on the total manifested cargo. Though such was his view, while adopting the tolerance limit, the Adjudicating Authority applied the percentage of 0.5% of the manifested quantified as quantity lost. This, according to the Adjudicating Authorit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tent cannot be disputed by the authorities nor disbelieved by the Court and therefore, it would be safe to rely upon the opinion of the expert in the said field. Thus, it appears that the percentage of moisture adopted by the Adjudicating Authority while issuing show cause notice at 6.47% was perfectly within the parameters as mentioned by Mr.Michael Miller. However, while adjudicating the show cause notice after receiving the reply, the Adjudicating Authority adopted a percentage of 0.5% and stated that it is an universal accepted principle in Maritime law. 7. Learned Senior standing counsel for the respondent department relied on the order passed by the Revisional Authority in the case of In Re:Spanoceanic Services Pvt.Ltd. [2014 (313) E....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o cargo left on board. Therefore, the vessel is no way responsible for shore out-turn. Two things are clear, that is there was no cargo left in the vessel. Secondly, the vessel did not berth in the port and the cargo was discharged into the barges and from the barges, it has come to the port area, where the quantity of the cargo has been measured. Therefore, even going by the order in Spanoceanic Services (supra), there are several types of loses, that is loss of Board, Loss of Pier and other handling losses at different places. Thus, this cargo has been handled in two places and this also ought to have been accounted for. 11. At this juncture, it would be relevant to take note of the decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Cour....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o do the same, since the show cause notice itself was issued after a lapse of two years from the date on which the cargo landed at the Cuddalore port and it has taken over 10 years for the conclusion of the proceedings at different levels culminating in the order passed by the Revisional Authority during March, 2004, which has been challenged in this writ petition filed in the year 2005 and it has come up for final disposal after a period of 10 years. Thus, this Court is of the view that the matter need not be remanded and this Court would be justified in exercising its power conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 13. Accordingly, as observed earlier, the error is committed by the Adjudicating Authority in not accepting ....