TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2002 (10) TMI 107
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... local agents in Mumbai for M/s. Equitable Transporter International, Inc. ('ETI' for short), who were freight forwarders at Taipai, Taiwan. M/s. American President Lines were the owners of the vessel M/s. 'M.V. Macalu' whose local agents in Mumbai were Forbes Forbes Cambell and Co. Ltd. 4.M/s. Crystalline Corporation, an Indian importer had placed an order for supply of components of umbrella with a foreign supplier situated at Taiwan. The foreign supplier handed over the consignment to Freight Forwarders namely E.T.I. On receipt of the goods, the E.T.I. as freight forwarders issued two Bills of Lading ('B/L' for short) in Taiwan dated 28-6-1987. Thereafter, the goods were loaded on board the vessel 'M.V. Makalu' on 14-8-1987 and 11-9-198....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....4th August, 1987 and 11th September, 1987 i.e. after the expiry of the licence on 30-6-1987. 7.The Customs Authorities, thereupon carried out detailed investigation and after recording statements of employee of the petitioners, issued a show cause notice under Section 124 of the Act on 30-12-1987 calling upon the petitioners to show cause as to why penal action should not be taken against the petitioners under Section 112(a) of the Act. The petitioners filed a detailed reply to the show cause notice stating therein that the show cause notice does not allege any act or omission on the part of the petitioners and further that the Bills of Lading were issued by E.T.I. at Taiwan and the petitioners as the agent of the E.T.I. cannot be held lia....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e liable for penal action under Section 112(a) read with Section 148 of the Customs Act. By the said order, the Additional Collector of Customs levied penalty of Rs. 30,000/- upon the petitioners. Challenging the said order, the present petition has been filed. 9.Mr. Pratap, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that the issue of Bills of Lading is not a matter under the Customs Act, 1962 and, therefore, any discrepancy in the Bills of Lading cannot be subject matter under the provisions of the Customs Act. That there is no obligation imposed on the petitioners or the E.T.I. under the Customs Act in respect of the B/L and, therefore, the Customs Authorities had no jurisdiction to impose penalty on the petitioners....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Thus, admittedly, it is not the case of the revenue that the petitioners have committed any offence under the Customs Act. It is only because the Customs Authorities hold that E.T.I. have committed an offence of antedating the B/L, the petitioners as local agents of E.T.I. are sought to be penalised by invoking Section 148 of the Customs Act. 12.Section 148 of the Customs Act makes the agents appointed by the person in charge of the conveyance liable for fulfilling the obligation imposed upon the incharge of the conveyance under the Customs Act. In the instant case, the person in charge of the conveyance namely M/s. American President Line have not committed breach of any obligation cast upon them under the Customs Act. Moreover, the peti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ction 108 of the Customs Act, the employee of the petitioners had clearly stated that in the B/L issued by E.T.I., the column regarding the dates on which the goods were loaded on board the vessel was not filled and that column was kept blank. The Customs Authorities have not chosen to issue show cause notice to E.T.I. Therefore, the conclusion drawn behind the back of E.T.I. that they have antedated the B/L by endorsing that the goods were put on board the vessel on 28th June, 1987 cannot be accepted. Counsel for the petitioners placed before us a copy of the B/L issued by E.T.I. where the column pertaining to the date of shipment is kept blank. Therefore, in the absence of any corroborative evidence on record, the E.T.I. cannot be held to....