CHOWGULE BROTHERS Vs. DEPUTY COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS BANGALORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant filed an import manifest for importing urea. In the import manifest it was stated that the quantity of urea to be imported was 12, 370 M.Ts. and it was to be unloaded at Karwar, Karnataka. THEre was a draught survey and in that draught survey, it was found that the actual quantity discharged was only 12, 292.552 M.Ts. and that there was a shortlanding of 77, 448 M.Ts. of urea, valued at Rs. 1, 09, 936.66. On that, a penalty of Rs. 1, 40, 000 has been levied under Section 116 of the Customs Act, 1962, hereinafter referred to as the Act. THE original authority as well as the Appellate authority and the revisional authority have held that as per the import manifest filed by the importer, the quantity imported was 12, 370 M.Ts. This was the quantity mentioned in the bill of lading. However, by the time, the urea came to be discharged at the destination point, namely, Karwar Port, the quantity discharged was only 12, 292.552 M.Ts. Even though the appellant was given sufficient opportunity, no evidence was adduced to show that the actual loading of urea was only 12, 292.552 M.Ts. and not 12, 370 M.Ts. of urea as stated in the import manifest. It may also be pointed out that after filing the import manifest, if the importer comes to know that the actual loading of the imported goods is not of the quantity as mentioned in the import manifest, it is open to him to have the import manifest amended, and in such a case, the concerned officer, if he is satisfied that the import manifest or the import report is in any way incorrect or incomplete, and that there was no fraudulent intention on the part of the importer, may permit the import manifest to be amended or supplemented. If really the quantity imported was only 12, 292.552 M.Ts. of urea and not 12, 370 M.Ts. the first reaction of the importer was to have the import manifest amended, but it did not do so, nor was there any evidence produced to show that the actual quantity of urea loaded was only 12, 292.552 M.Ts. In these circumstances, all the authorities and also the learned single Judge held that the penalty imposed under Section 116 of the Customs Act is justified. Further, the finding as to short-landing is a finding of fact, and, therefore, we see no reason to interfere with the order of the learned single Judge. Accordingly, the writ appeal is rejected.