TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2004 (7) TMI 99
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... agents for several foreign and Indian ship owners. In the early 1980s, carriage by containers came into existence. Container, normally, is entrusted at the Port of shipment to the vessel to be discharged at the Port of discharge. In course of time, this practice underwent a change. The containers were entrusted to a carrier known as "Main Line Operator" who would carry the same from the port of shipment to intermediary ports from where that would be carried by another vessel known as "Feeder Line Operator" to the final port of discharge. The "Main Line Operator" who carries the containers intended for different destinations bring the cargo to the feeder point like Singapore or Columbo from where the "Feeder Line Operator" carries the conta....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he fifth respondent advised the petitioner to re-ship the containers back to Singapore. The petitioner immediately requested the fifth respondent to obtain necessary permission from the Customs Department and comply with the requisite formalities since the containers were entered on the petitioner's account. Since the manifest had been signed by the fifth respondent, any amendment ought to have been carried on by them with the Customs Department. While so, the Assistant Commissioner of Customs issued a show cause notice, dated 1-12-1994 u/s 116 of the Act for imposition of penalty in respect of the two containers which were not discharged at Madras Port. To the said notice, a reply, dt. 12-12-1994 was sent by the petitioner. The first respo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the Port of Madras, that is they did not obtain permission for reshipment to Singapore. Under Section 30 of the Act, it is the responsibility of the petitioner to file necessary documents before taking the containers to Singapore. Under Section 116 of the Customs Act, if any goods loaded in a container for importation into India are not unloaded at the place of destination, and if the failure to unload is not satisfactorily accounted for, the person-in-charge of the containers is liable to pay the penalty. 4.The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that since the owner of the feeder line operator requested the petitioner to reship the two containers, they were reshipped. Since the manifests were filed only in the name of the "Mai....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....port shall at the foot thereof make and subscribe to a declaration as to the truth of its contents. If the proper officer is satisfied that the import manifest or import report is in any way incorrect or incomplete, and that there was no fraudulent intention, he may permit it to be amended or supplemented." As per the above provision, the person in charge of a vessel carrying imported goods shall deliver to the proper officer, an import manifest. The obligation is only on the person in charge of the vessel, which is carrying imported goods to deliver the import manifest to the Customs Authority (Proper Officer). Admittedly, the petitioner is the agent of the vessel which carried the two containers containing imported goods, into the P....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... goods loaded in a container for importation into India are not unloaded at the place of destination in India or if the quantity unloaded is short of the quantity to be unloaded, and if the failure is not satisfactorily accounted for, penalty is leviable. Admittedly, the import manifest was filed before the Customs Department. But the containers were not unloaded in India and the reason for not unloading has not been satisfactorily accounted for. Therefore, there is a violation of the provisions of Sec. 116 of the Customs Act. Under Section 30, the person in charge of the vessel, which carries the imported goods into India, is liable to pay the penalty. Admittedly, it is the petitioner, as an agent of the "Feeder Line Operator", filed the d....