TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2005 (5) TMI 195
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n was examined and the permission was denied on the ground that the said jetty was not an approved place for loading of export goods under Section 8 of Customs Act, 1962 for loading of Customs Act, 1962. Accordingly, the information was given to SEL vide Letter No. VIII(48)/115/Cus/P/WB/2002/114T, dated 31-1-2003. M/s. SEL submitted to Bills of Export viz. 19/EXP/Tech/2003 and 20/Exp/Tech/2003 both dated 7-2-2003, through their appointed CHA M/s. Overland Agency (hereinafter referred to as 'OLA') for export of Indian Milling Wheat to Bangladesh through TT Shed LCS. The Bills of Export were duly appraised and handed over to the said CHA. Investigations reveal that SEL had allegedly connived with OLA and made interpolation in the duplicate co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hulna Land Customs Station, Bangladesh by barge. They sought permission from Commissioner. The exporter again under his letter dated 29-1-2003 informed the Commissioner of Customs (Prev.) that the goods would be loaded from Haldia IWAI Terminal Jetty. The Superintendent, Central Excise under his letter dated 31-1-2003 informed the Exporter that the loading permission could not be given outside the specified place under Section 7 of Customs Act, 1962 whereas on earlier occasion permission was granted by Commissioner for loading of goods from IWAI Jetty, Haldia. They again requested the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) that in anticipation of getting the permission 3 railway rakes were booked from Faridabad FCI Godown to Haldia. Total qua....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is no allegation that the export was misused for. There was no loss of Govt. revenue or there is any dutiable or prohibited items had been exported. He, further, submits that in past consignments were allowed to be exported from IWAI Jetty on the permission given by the Commissioner. Therefore, he submits that there was no reason as to why similar permission could not be given to exporter SEL. There was no irregularity in the matter of export and receipt of the sale proceeds from the buyer under DEPB benefit or claim by the exporter. No draft was claimed by exporter. He further submits that in terms of provision of Section 113(F) & (G) of Customs Act, 1962, it has been mentioned that if any dutiable and prohibited goods are loaded or attemp....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mr. of Customs (Prev.), Calcutta, Reported in 2001 (131) E.L.T. 402 (Tri.-Kolkata) Therefore, he submits that the appeal may be allowed. 4. Learned D.R. submits that the bills of export Nos. 19 & 20/EXP/Tech/2003, dated 7-2-2003 were appraised for export of goods through TT Shed LCS and it has been accepted both by SEL and OLA . But after such appraisement SEL had made the hand written addition of the word "Haldia" in the box meant for mentioning the LCS and the said interpolated bills of export were presented before the Superintendent of Customs by authorised persons of OLA to get the export goods loaded and exported from IWAI Jetty, Haldia. By such commission and omissions, they committed offence and therefore, they have been rightl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... would not have permitted the shipment of wheat from Haldia. The shipment was completed in the presence of Supdt. (Customs). It cannot be said that it was not within the knowledge of the Customs Authority. Had there been no permission, the said shipment would not had been permitted by the Customs Authorities. On earlier occasion, permission was granted by the Commissioner for loading of goods from IWAI Jetty, Haldia which is evident from the record. In present case, sale proceeds of the milling wheat was also received by the exporter, West Bengal Essential Commodity Supply Corpn. Ltd. There was no question of revenue loss. There is not also any demand that the export was misused or there was any loss of Govt. revenue or there was any dutiab....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... account of mala fide intention. No such intention has been established by the Respondent. The same view was expressed in the following cases : (i) Syndicate Shipping Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Commr. of Customs, Chennai, Reported in 2003 (154) E.L.T. 756 (Tri.-Chennai). (ii) World Cargo Movers v. Commr. of Customs, New Delhi, Reported in 2002 (139) E.L.T. 408 (Tri.-Del.) In present case, the CHA acted on the instruction of the exporter and he cannot be held liable for interpolation. In present case the goods were not dutiable nor prohibited. Therefore, the provisions of Section 114 of Customs Act are not attracted. In normal course of business, th....