2017 (3) TMI 442

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ed under section 111 of Customs Act, 1962 by payment of fine of Rs. 25,00,000 and payment of penalty of Rs. 5,00,000 under section 112 of Customs Act, 1962. 2. The impugned confiscation was a consequence of alleged erroneous filing of name of consignee in line 3 of the said manifest and which was sought to be amended by the appellant. Briefly, the facts are that MV BSLE Performer carried a consignment of 'prime hot rolled steel coils' valued at Rs. 6,63,37,554 ostensibly consigned to M/s Weber and Wagner SA, Lugano from Shanghai by M/s Sinosteel Zhejiang Co Ltd for discharge at Mumbai. It was sought to amend the consignee to M/s Thyssenkrupp Electrical Steel India Pvt Ltd on the basis of endorsement on the reverse of bill of lading no. B....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ended for reasons of error or owing to updation of commercial transactions in relation to cargo which alter ownership. To place a blanket ban on such amendments without ascertaining the motive for the amendment would be to interpolate a regulatory hurdle on international trade transactions without authority of law. Surely, the adjudicating Commissioner cannot have been unaware of the role of these documents or the realities of trans-national trade that may manifest itself in change of ownership while the cargo is on the high seas. The sanctity of a bill of lading in international commercial engagement allows the transfer of shipped goods only by endorsement of bill of lading which is a document of title. To place a misconstruction on such a....