TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (4) TMI 485
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at Kandla. On 10.02.2007 IGM of "NIL" transit cargo/"NIL" cargo on board was filed. However when the officers boarded the said vessel it was found that that cargo in the form of used cranes, rollers etc were noticed in the hatch area. Since, the master of the vessel could not produce the supporting documents, the said undeclared good were detained on 10.02.2007 and handed over of the master of vessel vide detention memo- dated 10.02.2007. On investigation, it was found the said cargo was not declared in the IGM. On suspicion that the goods had contravened of Section 30 of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Regulation 5 of the Import Manifest (Vessel) Regulation 1971 and on a reasonable belief that the said goods were liable for confiscat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r shipping agents about the cargo in the said ship. M/s. Cargosol also requested for provisional release of the goods and requested that the said vessel should be allowed to sail with the above cargo to Mumbai port, where the said cargo will be discharged and then the vessel will sail to Muscat with the export cargo from Kandla. On 19.02.2007, Ms/. Cargosol tendered an undertaking and bond to the Commissioner of Customs, Kandla wherein they, on behalf of the Master of the vessel and the shipping agent, undertook to pay and levies, taxes, fine, penalties etc, that may be imposed on the goods and also to deliver them to final consignees. Accordingly the goods were released provisionally on furnishing of bond for Rs. 1.70 crores and bank guara....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s. A penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs was imposed on the appellant M/s. Cargosol. Penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs was also imposed on M/s. Omega Shipping Agencies P. Ltd. The penalty of 50,000/- Shri Satyajit Santoshkumar Mondal, and on Shri Jaikumar Parmanand Ramdasani, Branch Incharge of M/s Omega Shipping Agencies P. Ltd. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellants are before Tribunal. 2. Ld. Counsel for the appellant M/s Cargosol argued that it was a genuine mistake on their part. The said cargo was originally intended for Mumbai Port, however, due the change of plan the ship sailed from Karachi to Kandla to load export cargo. The change in route was attributed to bad whether the ship experienced in Karachi. He argued that there was no intention to smu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hat the Commissioner has not disputed that this impugned imported goods were later on imported at Mumbai Port and appropriate duty was paid by the said importers. 2.1. In view of above, Ld. Counsel argued that the demands of duty confiscation of penalties need to be set-aside. 3. Ld. AR relies in the impugned order, he argued that the said goods/ship was never intended to move from Kandla to Mumbai and the said assertion made by the appellant was a deliberate false assertion. For this relies of the statement of the Master of the ship. He further argued that the IGM filed in Karachi, shows the said cargo, however, the appellant failed to correctly file the IGM in Kandla. 4. We have gone through the rival submission, we find that the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r(s) to deposit as guarantee for the amount of this bond the sum of Rs. 1,70,00,000/- in cash. The securities as herein under mentioned of a total face value of Rs. 1,70,00,000/- endorsed in favour of the President of India and accepted on his behalf by the Commissioner of Customs. And whereas pending adjudication of the case by the competent officer, the said officer has under section 110(A) of Customs Act, 1962 agreed to release the obligator(s) the said goods on the obligator(s) executing the bond in the manner aforesaid. We agree that the Govt. shall be at liberty to appropriate the said deposit towards payment of the amount of duty/value/penalty/other lawful charges, as may be assessed by the competent authority in re....