M/S. BECHTEL INDIA PVT. LTD. Vs. CCE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANT was the General Manager of M/s. Indus Container Lines (Gujarat) India Pvt. Ltd. and when he was working in that capacity, a container which belonged to the company was allotted to M/s. Global Granites, Hyderabad at their request for stuffing the same with polished granite for export to Dubai. After the container was stuffed and customs seal was put, the container was transported to Bombay from Hyderabad ICD and it was recalled because the DRI had intelligence that the container was stuffed with red sanders in addition to polished granite. On an examination of the container, it was found to contain red sanders and it was also found that even though the customs seal and the other seals were intact, the rivets and handle, etc. were tampered with resulting in a situation where container could be opened without breaking the seals. On the ground that the appellant had abetted in the export of red sanders in the guise of polished granites, a penalty of Rs. 20,000/ - has been imposed and the appellant is seeking waiver of pre -deposit and stay against recovery of the same. Since the issue is only a penalty of Rs. 20,000/ - and the appellant is an individual and the learned advocate submitted that the appellant has left the job, and sought final decision, I consider it appropriate that pre -deposit should be waived and matter decided finally.

(2.) THE learned A.R. objects to this on the ground that this may affect the case of the department against other parties. In my view, the decision in this case would not affect the outcome of the cases against other parties involved at all. In any case it is made clear that none of the observations made here would be relevant for hearing the appeals against others.

(3.) PENALTY has been imposed on Shri Kiran on the ground that the container had been entrusted to the appellant company in Bombay port and the appellant had failed to ensure that the container was not tampered on the way from Hyderabad to Bombay and the normal journey time from Hyderabad to Bombay is only three days whereas the container had taken six days which should have rung the alarm bells in the minds of the appellant and he should have checked why there was delay. Further, it is also the case of the department that the appellant should have verified the container when he took back the same.