NATHAN CARGO SERVICES Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is by a Customs House Agent challenging the penalty of Rs. 25,000/ - imposed on them by the Commissioner under Section 114 of the Customs Act.

(2.) IT appears from the records that the appellants had filed Shipping Bill No. 4653 dated 24 -12 -1998 on behalf of M/s. Arul Jothi Garments, Tirupur (exporter) for clearance of a consignment of garments for export. The goods were examined on 30 -12 -1998 and 'let export order' issued on the same date as it appears from the copy of the shipping bill available on record. Subsequently, confusion arose as to whether the goods covered under the above shipping bill and the goods covered under the stuffing certificate dated 29 -4 -1999 of M/s. Intertek Testing Services, Tuticorin were the same or different. This confusion was created by contradictory statements given by the exporter and the CHA. The exporter stated that the cargo was received and admitted in the port on 30 -12 -1998 and was examined and stuffed on the same date under Customs supervision. On the other hand, the appellants (CHA) submitted that, due to some oversight, the Customs officer had entered the date as 30 -12 -1998 instead of 31 -12 -1998 on the shipping bill. Thus, according to the appellants, the goods were examined and stuffed on 31 -12 -1998. After a scrutiny of the records, the Commissioner found that the goods entered the port on 31 -12 -1998 and were stuffed on that date but subsequently destuffed on 13 -1 -1999. The shipping bill, however, indicated entry of the goods into the port, its examination and stuffing, and issuance of 'let export order', to have taken place on 30 -12 -1998. Accordingly, it was fottnd that there was no correlation between the goods covered under the shipping bill and the goods actually admitted into the port on 31 -12 -1998. It was further found that, as per the statement of the cargo agent, the goods which were re -stuffed on 13 -1 -1999 passed out of the Customs frontiers without supervision and examination by the Customs. Learned Commissioner, therefore, found the goods to be liable for confiscation under Section 113 and the exporter and their CHA liable for penalty under Section 114. He imposed penalties of Rs. 50,000/ - and Rs. 25,000/ - on the exporter and the CHA respectively, apart from rejecting the drawback claim of the exporter.

(3.) IN the present appeal, the main argument of the CHA is that the goods had already been exported and therefore the same were not liable for confiscation and none was liable for penalty. Learned Counsel reiterates this ground today. We have heard learned SDR also.