2010 (6) TMI 850

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ty were confirmed. Both these petitions involve identical facts, common issues and the similar challenges as such they are being decided by this common judgment. The facts are borrowed from Writ Petition No. 2396/2006. Brief Facts : 2. The petitioners are Ship and Forwarding Agents. M/s. Sea Bridge Maritime Agencies Pvt. Ltd. filed IGM No. 867, dated 23rd March, 1988 of motor vessel "JESILENA", The Mumbai Port Trust by their out turn report dated 27th January, 1999 reported short-landing of Item No. 39, 41, 106 and TP 150. The bill of entry was filed by the Customs House Agent/importer. Major part of the cargo was covered under Duty Entitlement Exemption Certificate (DEEC) Scheme as it was brought for home consumption and only ce....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ct condition as such they as Carriers are not liable for penalty for any short landing. During the course of adjudication, they also submitted written submission on 20th June, 2002 and disowned their liability. The personal hearing was granted by the adjudicating authority to the noticee. The present petitioner also took part in the adjudicating proceeding for the reasons best known to it. The adjudicating authority after having heard did not find favour with the submissions made by the noticee and did not accept the contention with respect to the container covered by Item No. 39 that it was consolidated FCL Container since it was shown as LCL Container in the extract of IGM. Similar finding was recorded in respect of Item No. 41. So far as....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....is Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India contending that the impugned orders are in breach of principles of natural justice and that the petitioner being the Cargo agent could not have been held liable to pay penalty under Section 116 of the Customs Act in view of law laid down by this Court in the case of Shaw Wallace & Co. Ltd. (supra). In addition to this, one more challenge was set up to the impugned order contending that no duty was involved since the cargo involved was under exemption scheme as such no penalty under Section 116 of the Customs Act could be imposed since the measure of penalty is the amount of duty chargeable on the goods imported. 6. This Court, prima facie; satisfied with the aforesaid submissio....