TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (4) TMI 660
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and again of Rs. 50,000/- Under Section 116 of the Act. on the appellant who acted as agent of shipping line on behalf of the importer. 2. The brief fact of the case is that M/s Fairdeal Supplies Ltd., Ahmedabad filed a Bill of Entry bearing No. 4078848 dtd. 29.01.2006 at ICD Khodiyar for clearances of "Aluminium Ingots" through M/s Exim Management Service (CHA), whereas the Appellant was the container line. The Bill of Lading was drawn in the name of M/s Bajrang Refractories Pvt. Ltd., who vide High Sea Sale Agreement sold the entire Aluminium Ingots to M/s Fairdeal Supplies Ltd. Attested copy of Bill of Lading, Invoice and other documents submitted at the time of High Seas sales agreement shows the commodity as "Aluminium Ingots" classi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Adjudicating Authority adjudicated the case vide OIO dtd. 05.05.2017 and imposed the penalty on the Appellant. Aggrieved by the said order, appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), and learned Commissioner (A) upheld the Order-in-Original and rejected the appeal filed by the appellant. Hence, the present appeal. 3. Shri. Dhaval Shah, Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant submits that in the instant case, the Appellant acted as the agent of the shipping line, the responsibility of the line is restricted to transporting the cargo and the line, in this case, had nothing to do with stuffing the cargo or filing cargo declarations. The penal provisions of the Customs Act, 1962 not applicable on Appellant. The A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....confirmation from the shipping line/ agent about the number of seal which is sought to be cut at the ICD. This can never be a "contradictory" stand taken by the Appellant. 6. He also argued that the adjudicating authority erred in his conclusion relating to issuance of the delivery order ("DO") to the Importer. The DO stated that the seal number of the Container is D607549 and cargo as "CEMENT BLCOK". This was in accordance with information available with the Appellant (as declared by the Shipper and as mentioned in the Original BL). It was only subsequently that the appellant noticed there was a seal number mismatch, in as much the seal affixed to the container was numbered F87809. This has always been the Appellant's position and there i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... ingots" in as much as the line issued two bills of lading, one showing the goods imported as "aluminium ingots'. Accordingly the adjudicating authority contendednthis mis-declaration by the importer was attributable to the Appellant issuing two bills of lading. However there is nothing on record which suggest that the Appellant issued two bills of landing and no reason has been provided in the impugned order as to why this finding was arrived at. 9. He also submits that imposition of penalty under Section 116 of the Act is erroneous. Adjudicating authority failed to apreciate that the Appellant as an agent of line, was involved only in filing IGM and issuance of DO. In the IGM the Appellant declared the goods to be "CEMENT BLOCKS", basis ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e submitted by the importer and another submitted by the shipping line. I find that both the bills of lading dated 31.12.2015 are shown to have been issued by Emirates Shipping Lines DMCEST at China and both bear the same No. EPIRCHNXNG134780, both mention container No. CARU 3728580 and Seal No. D607549. I further find that in the bill of lading submitted by the importer the description of goods is shown as 'Aluminium Ingots' whereas, in the bill of lading submitted by the shipping line the description of goods is shown as 'cement block'. I find that the delivery order dtd. 2nd February, 2016 issued by M/s Emirates Shipping Agencies (India) Pvt. Ltd. contained the details, which were identical to the details contained in the bill of lading,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ortation of goods from the consigner to consignee is the basic responsibility of the shipping line and it is only on the basis of delivery order issued by the shipping line that the consignee can take delivery of goods at the port of destination. There is no. There is no evidence before me to decide as to which documents are original and which are manufactured or forged and therefore, I am constrained to place my finding on record in this regard. However, from the contradiction as discussed above I find that the shipping line has not acted in a responsible manner, either they were not aware of the missing seal put by the inspection agency or they conveniently ignored to inform the consignee or the consignor. I have discussed above that the ....