| SooperKanoon Citation | sooperkanoon.com/23085 |
| Court | Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Calcutta |
| Decided On | May-16-2001 |
| Reported in | (2001)(136)ELT1396Tri(Kol.)kata |
| Appellant | The Oceanic Shipping Agency Pvt. |
| Respondent | Commr. of Customs (P), W.B., |
Notice (8): Undefined variable: kword [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123]Code Context}//highest occurence of word in the judgementecho $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['judgement']))), $query) . "</div>";$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'The Oceanic Shipping Agency Pvt Vs Commr of Customs P W B - Citation 23085 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '23085', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => null, 'appellant' => 'The Oceanic Shipping Agency Pvt.', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'The Oceanic Shipping Agency Pvt. Vs. Commr. of Customs (P), W.B.,', 'casenote' => '', 'caseanalysis' => '', 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Calcutta', 'court_type' => 'TRI', 'decidedon' => '2001-05-16', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => '', 'findings' => '', 'judge' => '', 'judgement' => ' 1. These are two appeals - one by M/s Oceanic Shipping Agency Pvt. Ltd. and another by M/s TISCO against the order dated 20.1.98/6.3.98 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), W.B., Calcutta.</p><p align="justify">2. The brief facts of the case are that the officer of DIU (P) Unit of the Calcutta Customs House seized 292 pcs. of M.S. Billets of the size 100 mm x 100 mm x 4-9 mts. weighing 0.5247 MT per piece on 14.11.96 lying in the Shed. On enquiry, it was learnt that the vessel M.V.Svetlogorsk arrived at Calcutta Port on 14.9.96 and completed the discharge of it, cargo on 20.9.96. After delivery of full manifested quantity of 10070 pcs. of M.S. Billets by this vessel, 292 pcs. were left in the shed which were considered to be un-manifested and suspected to be cleared by the clearing agent/steamer agent and importers by way of manipulating the import documents. Accordingly, the said 292 pcs. of M.S. Billets were detained on 18.10.96.</p><p align="justify">3. On further enquiry, Shri M.K. Mukherjee of M/s Oceanic Shipping Agency Pvt. Ltd.- the steamer agents in his statement dated 27.11.96 deposed that the vessel carried 10070 pcs. of M.S. Billets weighing 5283.600 MT as per relevant Bill of Lading that the subject consignment was imported by M/s TISCO as per the invoice number dated 28.7.96. This consignment was sold by M/s TISCO to four Nepalese consignees and whole of the consignment of 10070 pcs. had been delivered to such consignees.</p><p align="justify">He stated that M/s Lardner North and Company and m/s A.G.S. India Ltd.- the surveyors were employed by them and M/s TISCO respectively for survey of the goods; that the goods were delivered but the weighment was done outside the docks. The survey report dated 17.10.96 of M/s Lardner North and Company certified 10070 pcs. of billets lying in the shed. M/s A.G.S. India also conducted the survey between 15.9.96 and 16.10.96 and certified that the importers received only 5029.12 MT instead of 5283.60 MT (Bill of Landing quantity).</p><p align="justify">4. Accordingly the proceedings were initiated and a show-cause notice dated 14.3.97 was issued to M/s Oceanic Shipping Agency Pvt. Ltd. and M/s TISCO. These proceedings culminated in the Commissioner of Customs (P), Calcutta, W.B. passing an order dated 6.3.98/20.1.98 in which the Commissioner ordered for absolute confiscation of the impugned 292 pcs.</p><p align="justify">of M.S. Billets and imposed a penalty of Rs. 10,00,000/- each on M/s Oceanic Shipping Agency Pvt. Ltd. and M/s TISCO under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962.</p><p align="justify">5. Both the above named parties are in appeal against the Order of the Commissioner of Customs. We have heard Shri S.K. Bagaria, ld. Advocate for M/s TISCO and Dr. Samir Chakraborty, and Shri Abhijit Biswas, ld.Advocate for M/s Oceanic Shipping Agency Pvt. Ltd.. We have also heard Shri V.K. Chaturvedi, ld. SDR for the respondent.</p><p align="justify">6. We have considered the submissions made by both the sides. The Commissioner in her order has observed that 292 pcs. of billets are in excess of four consignments imported by four Nepalese parties through four different clearing agents; that after the goods were taken delivery by the concerned parties, the excess quantity of 292 numbers billets were left in the docks and the same were seized by the DIU Officers. It is observed that the billets were not manifested as the full quantity was delivered to the concerned importers and even otherwise also no importer claimed the consignment found in excess. The appellants on the contrary are contending that the total 10070 pcs. of billets mentioned in the invoice are of the lengths varying from 4000 mm to 9000 mm and their weight is 5283.600 MT. As against these particulars mentioned in the shipping documents, the imported goods were sold on weight basis and as per the survey report of M/s A.G.S.Ltd. and M/s Lardner North and Company, the delivery was made to the concerned parties only of 5092.120 MT though the number of billets delivered to them is yet shown as 10070 pcs. Thus the quantity short delivered to them was 191.480 MT and this shortage represented 292 pcs.</p><p align="justify">still lying in the docks. Thus it is contended that the total number of pieces representing the imported quantity of 5283.600 MT was 10362 and not 10070 as mentioned in the shipping documents. It is further submitted that the appellants M/s Oceanic Shipping Agency Pvt. Ltd. subsequently on 13.1.96 has filed a supplementary IGM with the Assistant Commissioner of Customs, Import Department, Customs House, Calcutta for the aforesaid 292 pcs. for delivery to the four Nepalese consignees which has been permitted by the said authority. It is stated that the four buyers in Nepal had also lodged their claims on the consignors M/s ITD for the short delivery and the same has also been paid. We have considered these submissions. From the copies of the shipping documents and subsequent report of the surveyors, it clearly emerges that though the shipping documents referred to total number of pcs. of M.S. Billets as 10070 but this is obviously an approximate number on account of varying lengths of billets between 4000 mm to 9000 mm. The consignment was primarily shipped by weight which happened to 5283.600 MT. As per the two survey reports, the delivery made to the four consignees was only of 5092.120 MT and balance quantity of 191.480 MT related to the 292 billets lying in the docks after the delivery had been effected to the concerned parties. This is further supported by the fact that the Import Manifest was subsequently got amended by the steamer agents of the vessel through the A.C., Customs, Import Department and four Nepali buyers have also since been compensated by the consignor in respect of the quantity of the goods short delivered to them. In this view of the matter, therefore, there is no ground to hold that the impugned 292 pcs. of M.S. Billets were illegally imported and to order for their confiscation. Consequently, there is also no warrant to impose penalty either on the steamer agents or on the importers. These two appeals are, therefore, allowed, by setting aside the order of the Commissioner of Customs.', 'observations' => '', 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => '(2001)(136)ELT1396Tri(Kol.)kata', 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'Commr. of Customs (P), W.B.,', 'sub' => null, 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'oceanic-shipping-agency-pvt-vs-commr-customs', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '23085', (int) 1 => 'oceanic-shipping-agency-pvt-vs-commr-customs' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'The Oceanic Shipping Agency Pvt Vs Commr of Customs P W B - Citation 23085 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '23085', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => null, 'appellant' => 'The Oceanic Shipping Agency Pvt.', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'The Oceanic Shipping Agency Pvt. Vs. Commr. of Customs (P), W.B.,', 'casenote' => '', 'caseanalysis' => '', 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Calcutta', 'court_type' => 'TRI', 'decidedon' => '2001-05-16', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => '', 'findings' => '', 'judge' => '', 'judgement' => ' 1. These are two appeals - one by M/s Oceanic Shipping Agency Pvt. Ltd. and another by M/s TISCO against the order dated 20.1.98/6.3.98 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), W.B., Calcutta.</p><p>2. The brief facts of the case are that the officer of DIU (P) Unit of the Calcutta Customs House seized 292 pcs. of M.S. Billets of the size 100 mm x 100 mm x 4-9 mts. weighing 0.5247 MT per piece on 14.11.96 lying in the Shed. On enquiry, it was learnt that the vessel M.V.Svetlogorsk arrived at Calcutta Port on 14.9.96 and completed the discharge of it, cargo on 20.9.96. After delivery of full manifested quantity of 10070 pcs. of M.S. Billets by this vessel, 292 pcs. were left in the shed which were considered to be un-manifested and suspected to be cleared by the clearing agent/steamer agent and importers by way of manipulating the import documents. Accordingly, the said 292 pcs. of M.S. Billets were detained on 18.10.96.</p><p>3. On further enquiry, Shri M.K. Mukherjee of M/s Oceanic Shipping Agency Pvt. Ltd.- the steamer agents in his statement dated 27.11.96 deposed that the vessel carried 10070 pcs. of M.S. Billets weighing 5283.600 MT as per relevant Bill of Lading that the subject consignment was imported by M/s TISCO as per the invoice number dated 28.7.96. This consignment was sold by M/s TISCO to four Nepalese consignees and whole of the consignment of 10070 pcs. had been delivered to such consignees.</p><p>He stated that M/s Lardner North and Company and m/s A.G.S. India Ltd.- the surveyors were employed by them and M/s TISCO respectively for survey of the goods; that the goods were delivered but the weighment was done outside the docks. The survey report dated 17.10.96 of M/s Lardner North and Company certified 10070 pcs. of billets lying in the shed. M/s A.G.S. India also conducted the survey between 15.9.96 and 16.10.96 and certified that the importers received only 5029.12 MT instead of 5283.60 MT (Bill of Landing quantity).</p><p>4. Accordingly the proceedings were initiated and a show-cause notice dated 14.3.97 was issued to M/s Oceanic Shipping Agency Pvt. Ltd. and M/s TISCO. These proceedings culminated in the Commissioner of Customs (P), Calcutta, W.B. passing an order dated 6.3.98/20.1.98 in which the Commissioner ordered for absolute confiscation of the impugned 292 pcs.</p><p>of M.S. Billets and imposed a penalty of Rs. 10,00,000/- each on M/s Oceanic Shipping Agency Pvt. Ltd. and M/s TISCO under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962.</p><p>5. Both the above named parties are in appeal against the Order of the Commissioner of Customs. We have heard Shri S.K. Bagaria, ld. Advocate for M/s TISCO and Dr. Samir Chakraborty, and Shri Abhijit Biswas, ld.Advocate for M/s Oceanic Shipping Agency Pvt. Ltd.. We have also heard Shri V.K. Chaturvedi, ld. SDR for the respondent.</p><p>6. We have considered the submissions made by both the sides. The Commissioner in her order has observed that 292 pcs. of billets are in excess of four consignments imported by four Nepalese parties through four different clearing agents; that after the goods were taken delivery by the concerned parties, the excess quantity of 292 numbers billets were left in the docks and the same were seized by the DIU Officers. It is observed that the billets were not manifested as the full quantity was delivered to the concerned importers and even otherwise also no importer claimed the consignment found in excess. The appellants on the contrary are contending that the total 10070 pcs. of billets mentioned in the invoice are of the lengths varying from 4000 mm to 9000 mm and their weight is 5283.600 MT. As against these particulars mentioned in the shipping documents, the imported goods were sold on weight basis and as per the survey report of M/s A.G.S.Ltd. and M/s Lardner North and Company, the delivery was made to the concerned parties only of 5092.120 MT though the number of billets delivered to them is yet shown as 10070 pcs. Thus the quantity short delivered to them was 191.480 MT and this shortage represented 292 pcs.</p><p>still lying in the docks. Thus it is contended that the total number of pieces representing the imported quantity of 5283.600 MT was 10362 and not 10070 as mentioned in the shipping documents. It is further submitted that the appellants M/s Oceanic Shipping Agency Pvt. Ltd. subsequently on 13.1.96 has filed a supplementary IGM with the Assistant Commissioner of Customs, Import Department, Customs House, Calcutta for the aforesaid 292 pcs. for delivery to the four Nepalese consignees which has been permitted by the said authority. It is stated that the four buyers in Nepal had also lodged their claims on the consignors M/s ITD for the short delivery and the same has also been paid. We have considered these submissions. From the copies of the shipping documents and subsequent report of the surveyors, it clearly emerges that though the shipping documents referred to total number of pcs. of M.S. Billets as 10070 but this is obviously an approximate number on account of varying lengths of billets between 4000 mm to 9000 mm. The consignment was primarily shipped by weight which happened to 5283.600 MT. As per the two survey reports, the delivery made to the four consignees was only of 5092.120 MT and balance quantity of 191.480 MT related to the 292 billets lying in the docks after the delivery had been effected to the concerned parties. This is further supported by the fact that the Import Manifest was subsequently got amended by the steamer agents of the vessel through the A.C., Customs, Import Department and four Nepali buyers have also since been compensated by the consignor in respect of the quantity of the goods short delivered to them. In this view of the matter, therefore, there is no ground to hold that the impugned 292 pcs. of M.S. Billets were illegally imported and to order for their confiscation. Consequently, there is also no warrant to impose penalty either on the steamer agents or on the importers. These two appeals are, therefore, allowed, by setting aside the order of the Commissioner of Customs.', 'observations' => '', 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => '(2001)(136)ELT1396Tri(Kol.)kata', 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'Commr. of Customs (P), W.B.,', 'sub' => null, 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'oceanic-shipping-agency-pvt-vs-commr-customs' $args = array( (int) 0 => '23085', (int) 1 => 'oceanic-shipping-agency-pvt-vs-commr-customs' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/23085/oceanic-shipping-agency-pvt-vs-commr-customs' $ctype = ''include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123]1. these are two appeals - one by m/s oceanic shipping agency pvt. ltd. and another by m/s tisco against the order dated 20.1.98/6.3.98 passed by the commissioner of customs (preventive), w.b., calcutta.2. the brief facts of the case are that the officer of diu (p) unit of the calcutta customs house seized 292 pcs. of m.s. billets of the size 100 mm x 100 mm x 4-9 mts. weighing 0.5247 mt per piece on 14.11.96 lying in the shed. on enquiry, it was learnt that the vessel m.v.svetlogorsk arrived at calcutta port on 14.9.96 and completed the discharge of it, cargo on 20.9.96. after delivery of full manifested quantity of 10070 pcs. of m.s. billets by this vessel, 292 pcs. were left in the shed which were considered to be un-manifested and suspected to be cleared by the clearing agent/steamer.....Code Context}//highest occurence of word in the judgementecho $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['judgement']))), $query) . "</div>";$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'The Oceanic Shipping Agency Pvt Vs Commr of Customs P W B - Citation 23085 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '23085', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => null, 'appellant' => 'The Oceanic Shipping Agency Pvt.', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'The Oceanic Shipping Agency Pvt. Vs. Commr. of Customs (P), W.B.,', 'casenote' => '', 'caseanalysis' => '', 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Calcutta', 'court_type' => 'TRI', 'decidedon' => '2001-05-16', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => '', 'findings' => '', 'judge' => '', 'judgement' => ' 1. These are two appeals - one by M/s Oceanic Shipping Agency Pvt. Ltd. and another by M/s TISCO against the order dated 20.1.98/6.3.98 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), W.B., Calcutta.</p><p align="justify">2. The brief facts of the case are that the officer of DIU (P) Unit of the Calcutta Customs House seized 292 pcs. of M.S. Billets of the size 100 mm x 100 mm x 4-9 mts. weighing 0.5247 MT per piece on 14.11.96 lying in the Shed. On enquiry, it was learnt that the vessel M.V.Svetlogorsk arrived at Calcutta Port on 14.9.96 and completed the discharge of it, cargo on 20.9.96. After delivery of full manifested quantity of 10070 pcs. of M.S. Billets by this vessel, 292 pcs. were left in the shed which were considered to be un-manifested and suspected to be cleared by the clearing agent/steamer agent and importers by way of manipulating the import documents. Accordingly, the said 292 pcs. of M.S. Billets were detained on 18.10.96.</p><p align="justify">3. On further enquiry, Shri M.K. Mukherjee of M/s Oceanic Shipping Agency Pvt. Ltd.- the steamer agents in his statement dated 27.11.96 deposed that the vessel carried 10070 pcs. of M.S. Billets weighing 5283.600 MT as per relevant Bill of Lading that the subject consignment was imported by M/s TISCO as per the invoice number dated 28.7.96. This consignment was sold by M/s TISCO to four Nepalese consignees and whole of the consignment of 10070 pcs. had been delivered to such consignees.</p><p align="justify">He stated that M/s Lardner North and Company and m/s A.G.S. India Ltd.- the surveyors were employed by them and M/s TISCO respectively for survey of the goods; that the goods were delivered but the weighment was done outside the docks. The survey report dated 17.10.96 of M/s Lardner North and Company certified 10070 pcs. of billets lying in the shed. M/s A.G.S. India also conducted the survey between 15.9.96 and 16.10.96 and certified that the importers received only 5029.12 MT instead of 5283.60 MT (Bill of Landing quantity).</p><p align="justify">4. Accordingly the proceedings were initiated and a show-cause notice dated 14.3.97 was issued to M/s Oceanic Shipping Agency Pvt. Ltd. and M/s TISCO. These proceedings culminated in the Commissioner of Customs (P), Calcutta, W.B. passing an order dated 6.3.98/20.1.98 in which the Commissioner ordered for absolute confiscation of the impugned 292 pcs.</p><p align="justify">of M.S. Billets and imposed a penalty of Rs. 10,00,000/- each on M/s Oceanic Shipping Agency Pvt. Ltd. and M/s TISCO under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962.</p><p align="justify">5. Both the above named parties are in appeal against the Order of the Commissioner of Customs. We have heard Shri S.K. Bagaria, ld. Advocate for M/s TISCO and Dr. Samir Chakraborty, and Shri Abhijit Biswas, ld.Advocate for M/s Oceanic Shipping Agency Pvt. Ltd.. We have also heard Shri V.K. Chaturvedi, ld. SDR for the respondent.</p><p align="justify">6. We have considered the submissions made by both the sides. The Commissioner in her order has observed that 292 pcs. of billets are in excess of four consignments imported by four Nepalese parties through four different clearing agents; that after the goods were taken delivery by the concerned parties, the excess quantity of 292 numbers billets were left in the docks and the same were seized by the DIU Officers. It is observed that the billets were not manifested as the full quantity was delivered to the concerned importers and even otherwise also no importer claimed the consignment found in excess. The appellants on the contrary are contending that the total 10070 pcs. of billets mentioned in the invoice are of the lengths varying from 4000 mm to 9000 mm and their weight is 5283.600 MT. As against these particulars mentioned in the shipping documents, the imported goods were sold on weight basis and as per the survey report of M/s A.G.S.Ltd. and M/s Lardner North and Company, the delivery was made to the concerned parties only of 5092.120 MT though the number of billets delivered to them is yet shown as 10070 pcs. Thus the quantity short delivered to them was 191.480 MT and this shortage represented 292 pcs.</p><p align="justify">still lying in the docks. Thus it is contended that the total number of pieces representing the imported quantity of 5283.600 MT was 10362 and not 10070 as mentioned in the shipping documents. It is further submitted that the appellants M/s Oceanic Shipping Agency Pvt. Ltd. subsequently on 13.1.96 has filed a supplementary IGM with the Assistant Commissioner of Customs, Import Department, Customs House, Calcutta for the aforesaid 292 pcs. for delivery to the four Nepalese consignees which has been permitted by the said authority. It is stated that the four buyers in Nepal had also lodged their claims on the consignors M/s ITD for the short delivery and the same has also been paid. We have considered these submissions. From the copies of the shipping documents and subsequent report of the surveyors, it clearly emerges that though the shipping documents referred to total number of pcs. of M.S. Billets as 10070 but this is obviously an approximate number on account of varying lengths of billets between 4000 mm to 9000 mm. The consignment was primarily shipped by weight which happened to 5283.600 MT. As per the two survey reports, the delivery made to the four consignees was only of 5092.120 MT and balance quantity of 191.480 MT related to the 292 billets lying in the docks after the delivery had been effected to the concerned parties. This is further supported by the fact that the Import Manifest was subsequently got amended by the steamer agents of the vessel through the A.C., Customs, Import Department and four Nepali buyers have also since been compensated by the consignor in respect of the quantity of the goods short delivered to them. In this view of the matter, therefore, there is no ground to hold that the impugned 292 pcs. of M.S. Billets were illegally imported and to order for their confiscation. Consequently, there is also no warrant to impose penalty either on the steamer agents or on the importers. These two appeals are, therefore, allowed, by setting aside the order of the Commissioner of Customs.', 'observations' => '', 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => '(2001)(136)ELT1396Tri(Kol.)kata', 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'Commr. of Customs (P), W.B.,', 'sub' => null, 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'oceanic-shipping-agency-pvt-vs-commr-customs', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '23085', (int) 1 => 'oceanic-shipping-agency-pvt-vs-commr-customs' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'The Oceanic Shipping Agency Pvt Vs Commr of Customs P W B - Citation 23085 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '23085', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => null, 'appellant' => 'The Oceanic Shipping Agency Pvt.', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'The Oceanic Shipping Agency Pvt. Vs. Commr. of Customs (P), W.B.,', 'casenote' => '', 'caseanalysis' => '', 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Calcutta', 'court_type' => 'TRI', 'decidedon' => '2001-05-16', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => '', 'findings' => '', 'judge' => '', 'judgement' => ' 1. These are two appeals - one by M/s Oceanic Shipping Agency Pvt. Ltd. and another by M/s TISCO against the order dated 20.1.98/6.3.98 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), W.B., Calcutta.</p><p>2. The brief facts of the case are that the officer of DIU (P) Unit of the Calcutta Customs House seized 292 pcs. of M.S. Billets of the size 100 mm x 100 mm x 4-9 mts. weighing 0.5247 MT per piece on 14.11.96 lying in the Shed. On enquiry, it was learnt that the vessel M.V.Svetlogorsk arrived at Calcutta Port on 14.9.96 and completed the discharge of it, cargo on 20.9.96. After delivery of full manifested quantity of 10070 pcs. of M.S. Billets by this vessel, 292 pcs. were left in the shed which were considered to be un-manifested and suspected to be cleared by the clearing agent/steamer agent and importers by way of manipulating the import documents. Accordingly, the said 292 pcs. of M.S. Billets were detained on 18.10.96.</p><p>3. On further enquiry, Shri M.K. Mukherjee of M/s Oceanic Shipping Agency Pvt. Ltd.- the steamer agents in his statement dated 27.11.96 deposed that the vessel carried 10070 pcs. of M.S. Billets weighing 5283.600 MT as per relevant Bill of Lading that the subject consignment was imported by M/s TISCO as per the invoice number dated 28.7.96. This consignment was sold by M/s TISCO to four Nepalese consignees and whole of the consignment of 10070 pcs. had been delivered to such consignees.</p><p>He stated that M/s Lardner North and Company and m/s A.G.S. India Ltd.- the surveyors were employed by them and M/s TISCO respectively for survey of the goods; that the goods were delivered but the weighment was done outside the docks. The survey report dated 17.10.96 of M/s Lardner North and Company certified 10070 pcs. of billets lying in the shed. M/s A.G.S. India also conducted the survey between 15.9.96 and 16.10.96 and certified that the importers received only 5029.12 MT instead of 5283.60 MT (Bill of Landing quantity).</p><p>4. Accordingly the proceedings were initiated and a show-cause notice dated 14.3.97 was issued to M/s Oceanic Shipping Agency Pvt. Ltd. and M/s TISCO. These proceedings culminated in the Commissioner of Customs (P), Calcutta, W.B. passing an order dated 6.3.98/20.1.98 in which the Commissioner ordered for absolute confiscation of the impugned 292 pcs.</p><p>of M.S. Billets and imposed a penalty of Rs. 10,00,000/- each on M/s Oceanic Shipping Agency Pvt. Ltd. and M/s TISCO under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962.</p><p>5. Both the above named parties are in appeal against the Order of the Commissioner of Customs. We have heard Shri S.K. Bagaria, ld. Advocate for M/s TISCO and Dr. Samir Chakraborty, and Shri Abhijit Biswas, ld.Advocate for M/s Oceanic Shipping Agency Pvt. Ltd.. We have also heard Shri V.K. Chaturvedi, ld. SDR for the respondent.</p><p>6. We have considered the submissions made by both the sides. The Commissioner in her order has observed that 292 pcs. of billets are in excess of four consignments imported by four Nepalese parties through four different clearing agents; that after the goods were taken delivery by the concerned parties, the excess quantity of 292 numbers billets were left in the docks and the same were seized by the DIU Officers. It is observed that the billets were not manifested as the full quantity was delivered to the concerned importers and even otherwise also no importer claimed the consignment found in excess. The appellants on the contrary are contending that the total 10070 pcs. of billets mentioned in the invoice are of the lengths varying from 4000 mm to 9000 mm and their weight is 5283.600 MT. As against these particulars mentioned in the shipping documents, the imported goods were sold on weight basis and as per the survey report of M/s A.G.S.Ltd. and M/s Lardner North and Company, the delivery was made to the concerned parties only of 5092.120 MT though the number of billets delivered to them is yet shown as 10070 pcs. Thus the quantity short delivered to them was 191.480 MT and this shortage represented 292 pcs.</p><p>still lying in the docks. Thus it is contended that the total number of pieces representing the imported quantity of 5283.600 MT was 10362 and not 10070 as mentioned in the shipping documents. It is further submitted that the appellants M/s Oceanic Shipping Agency Pvt. Ltd. subsequently on 13.1.96 has filed a supplementary IGM with the Assistant Commissioner of Customs, Import Department, Customs House, Calcutta for the aforesaid 292 pcs. for delivery to the four Nepalese consignees which has been permitted by the said authority. It is stated that the four buyers in Nepal had also lodged their claims on the consignors M/s ITD for the short delivery and the same has also been paid. We have considered these submissions. From the copies of the shipping documents and subsequent report of the surveyors, it clearly emerges that though the shipping documents referred to total number of pcs. of M.S. Billets as 10070 but this is obviously an approximate number on account of varying lengths of billets between 4000 mm to 9000 mm. The consignment was primarily shipped by weight which happened to 5283.600 MT. As per the two survey reports, the delivery made to the four consignees was only of 5092.120 MT and balance quantity of 191.480 MT related to the 292 billets lying in the docks after the delivery had been effected to the concerned parties. This is further supported by the fact that the Import Manifest was subsequently got amended by the steamer agents of the vessel through the A.C., Customs, Import Department and four Nepali buyers have also since been compensated by the consignor in respect of the quantity of the goods short delivered to them. In this view of the matter, therefore, there is no ground to hold that the impugned 292 pcs. of M.S. Billets were illegally imported and to order for their confiscation. Consequently, there is also no warrant to impose penalty either on the steamer agents or on the importers. These two appeals are, therefore, allowed, by setting aside the order of the Commissioner of Customs.', 'observations' => '', 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => '(2001)(136)ELT1396Tri(Kol.)kata', 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'Commr. of Customs (P), W.B.,', 'sub' => null, 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'oceanic-shipping-agency-pvt-vs-commr-customs' $args = array( (int) 0 => '23085', (int) 1 => 'oceanic-shipping-agency-pvt-vs-commr-customs' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/23085/oceanic-shipping-agency-pvt-vs-commr-customs' $ctype = ''include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]1. These are two appeals - one by M/s Oceanic Shipping Agency Pvt. Ltd. and another by M/s TISCO against the order dated 20.1.98/6.3.98 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), W.B., Calcutta.Code Contextecho $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect');}echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'The Oceanic Shipping Agency Pvt Vs Commr of Customs P W B - Citation 23085 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '23085', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => null, 'appellant' => 'The Oceanic Shipping Agency Pvt.', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'The Oceanic Shipping Agency Pvt. Vs. Commr. of Customs (P), W.B.,', 'casenote' => '', 'caseanalysis' => '', 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Calcutta', 'court_type' => 'TRI', 'decidedon' => '2001-05-16', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => '', 'findings' => '', 'judge' => '', 'judgement' => ' 1. These are two appeals - one by M/s Oceanic Shipping Agency Pvt. Ltd. and another by M/s TISCO against the order dated 20.1.98/6.3.98 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), W.B., Calcutta.</p><p align="justify">2. The brief facts of the case are that the officer of DIU (P) Unit of the Calcutta Customs House seized 292 pcs. of M.S. Billets of the size 100 mm x 100 mm x 4-9 mts. weighing 0.5247 MT per piece on 14.11.96 lying in the Shed. On enquiry, it was learnt that the vessel M.V.Svetlogorsk arrived at Calcutta Port on 14.9.96 and completed the discharge of it, cargo on 20.9.96. After delivery of full manifested quantity of 10070 pcs. of M.S. Billets by this vessel, 292 pcs. were left in the shed which were considered to be un-manifested and suspected to be cleared by the clearing agent/steamer agent and importers by way of manipulating the import documents. Accordingly, the said 292 pcs. of M.S. Billets were detained on 18.10.96.</p><p align="justify">3. On further enquiry, Shri M.K. Mukherjee of M/s Oceanic Shipping Agency Pvt. Ltd.- the steamer agents in his statement dated 27.11.96 deposed that the vessel carried 10070 pcs. of M.S. Billets weighing 5283.600 MT as per relevant Bill of Lading that the subject consignment was imported by M/s TISCO as per the invoice number dated 28.7.96. This consignment was sold by M/s TISCO to four Nepalese consignees and whole of the consignment of 10070 pcs. had been delivered to such consignees.</p><p align="justify">He stated that M/s Lardner North and Company and m/s A.G.S. India Ltd.- the surveyors were employed by them and M/s TISCO respectively for survey of the goods; that the goods were delivered but the weighment was done outside the docks. The survey report dated 17.10.96 of M/s Lardner North and Company certified 10070 pcs. of billets lying in the shed. M/s A.G.S. India also conducted the survey between 15.9.96 and 16.10.96 and certified that the importers received only 5029.12 MT instead of 5283.60 MT (Bill of Landing quantity).</p><p align="justify">4. Accordingly the proceedings were initiated and a show-cause notice dated 14.3.97 was issued to M/s Oceanic Shipping Agency Pvt. Ltd. and M/s TISCO. These proceedings culminated in the Commissioner of Customs (P), Calcutta, W.B. passing an order dated 6.3.98/20.1.98 in which the Commissioner ordered for absolute confiscation of the impugned 292 pcs.</p><p align="justify">of M.S. Billets and imposed a penalty of Rs. 10,00,000/- each on M/s Oceanic Shipping Agency Pvt. Ltd. and M/s TISCO under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962.</p><p align="justify">5. Both the above named parties are in appeal against the Order of the Commissioner of Customs. We have heard Shri S.K. Bagaria, ld. Advocate for M/s TISCO and Dr. Samir Chakraborty, and Shri Abhijit Biswas, ld.Advocate for M/s Oceanic Shipping Agency Pvt. Ltd.. We have also heard Shri V.K. Chaturvedi, ld. SDR for the respondent.</p><p align="justify">6. We have considered the submissions made by both the sides. The Commissioner in her order has observed that 292 pcs. of billets are in excess of four consignments imported by four Nepalese parties through four different clearing agents; that after the goods were taken delivery by the concerned parties, the excess quantity of 292 numbers billets were left in the docks and the same were seized by the DIU Officers. It is observed that the billets were not manifested as the full quantity was delivered to the concerned importers and even otherwise also no importer claimed the consignment found in excess. The appellants on the contrary are contending that the total 10070 pcs. of billets mentioned in the invoice are of the lengths varying from 4000 mm to 9000 mm and their weight is 5283.600 MT. As against these particulars mentioned in the shipping documents, the imported goods were sold on weight basis and as per the survey report of M/s A.G.S.Ltd. and M/s Lardner North and Company, the delivery was made to the concerned parties only of 5092.120 MT though the number of billets delivered to them is yet shown as 10070 pcs. Thus the quantity short delivered to them was 191.480 MT and this shortage represented 292 pcs.</p><p align="justify">still lying in the docks. Thus it is contended that the total number of pieces representing the imported quantity of 5283.600 MT was 10362 and not 10070 as mentioned in the shipping documents. It is further submitted that the appellants M/s Oceanic Shipping Agency Pvt. Ltd. subsequently on 13.1.96 has filed a supplementary IGM with the Assistant Commissioner of Customs, Import Department, Customs House, Calcutta for the aforesaid 292 pcs. for delivery to the four Nepalese consignees which has been permitted by the said authority. It is stated that the four buyers in Nepal had also lodged their claims on the consignors M/s ITD for the short delivery and the same has also been paid. We have considered these submissions. From the copies of the shipping documents and subsequent report of the surveyors, it clearly emerges that though the shipping documents referred to total number of pcs. of M.S. Billets as 10070 but this is obviously an approximate number on account of varying lengths of billets between 4000 mm to 9000 mm. The consignment was primarily shipped by weight which happened to 5283.600 MT. As per the two survey reports, the delivery made to the four consignees was only of 5092.120 MT and balance quantity of 191.480 MT related to the 292 billets lying in the docks after the delivery had been effected to the concerned parties. This is further supported by the fact that the Import Manifest was subsequently got amended by the steamer agents of the vessel through the A.C., Customs, Import Department and four Nepali buyers have also since been compensated by the consignor in respect of the quantity of the goods short delivered to them. In this view of the matter, therefore, there is no ground to hold that the impugned 292 pcs. of M.S. Billets were illegally imported and to order for their confiscation. Consequently, there is also no warrant to impose penalty either on the steamer agents or on the importers. These two appeals are, therefore, allowed, by setting aside the order of the Commissioner of Customs.', 'observations' => '', 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => '(2001)(136)ELT1396Tri(Kol.)kata', 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'Commr. of Customs (P), W.B.,', 'sub' => null, 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'oceanic-shipping-agency-pvt-vs-commr-customs', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '23085', (int) 1 => 'oceanic-shipping-agency-pvt-vs-commr-customs' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'The Oceanic Shipping Agency Pvt Vs Commr of Customs P W B - Citation 23085 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '23085', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => null, 'appellant' => 'The Oceanic Shipping Agency Pvt.', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'The Oceanic Shipping Agency Pvt. Vs. Commr. of Customs (P), W.B.,', 'casenote' => '', 'caseanalysis' => '', 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Calcutta', 'court_type' => 'TRI', 'decidedon' => '2001-05-16', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => '', 'findings' => '', 'judge' => '', 'judgement' => ' 1. These are two appeals - one by M/s Oceanic Shipping Agency Pvt. Ltd. and another by M/s TISCO against the order dated 20.1.98/6.3.98 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), W.B., Calcutta.</p><p>2. The brief facts of the case are that the officer of DIU (P) Unit of the Calcutta Customs House seized 292 pcs. of M.S. Billets of the size 100 mm x 100 mm x 4-9 mts. weighing 0.5247 MT per piece on 14.11.96 lying in the Shed. On enquiry, it was learnt that the vessel M.V.Svetlogorsk arrived at Calcutta Port on 14.9.96 and completed the discharge of it, cargo on 20.9.96. After delivery of full manifested quantity of 10070 pcs. of M.S. Billets by this vessel, 292 pcs. were left in the shed which were considered to be un-manifested and suspected to be cleared by the clearing agent/steamer agent and importers by way of manipulating the import documents. Accordingly, the said 292 pcs. of M.S. Billets were detained on 18.10.96.</p><p>3. On further enquiry, Shri M.K. Mukherjee of M/s Oceanic Shipping Agency Pvt. Ltd.- the steamer agents in his statement dated 27.11.96 deposed that the vessel carried 10070 pcs. of M.S. Billets weighing 5283.600 MT as per relevant Bill of Lading that the subject consignment was imported by M/s TISCO as per the invoice number dated 28.7.96. This consignment was sold by M/s TISCO to four Nepalese consignees and whole of the consignment of 10070 pcs. had been delivered to such consignees.</p><p>He stated that M/s Lardner North and Company and m/s A.G.S. India Ltd.- the surveyors were employed by them and M/s TISCO respectively for survey of the goods; that the goods were delivered but the weighment was done outside the docks. The survey report dated 17.10.96 of M/s Lardner North and Company certified 10070 pcs. of billets lying in the shed. M/s A.G.S. India also conducted the survey between 15.9.96 and 16.10.96 and certified that the importers received only 5029.12 MT instead of 5283.60 MT (Bill of Landing quantity).</p><p>4. Accordingly the proceedings were initiated and a show-cause notice dated 14.3.97 was issued to M/s Oceanic Shipping Agency Pvt. Ltd. and M/s TISCO. These proceedings culminated in the Commissioner of Customs (P), Calcutta, W.B. passing an order dated 6.3.98/20.1.98 in which the Commissioner ordered for absolute confiscation of the impugned 292 pcs.</p><p>of M.S. Billets and imposed a penalty of Rs. 10,00,000/- each on M/s Oceanic Shipping Agency Pvt. Ltd. and M/s TISCO under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962.</p><p>5. Both the above named parties are in appeal against the Order of the Commissioner of Customs. We have heard Shri S.K. Bagaria, ld. Advocate for M/s TISCO and Dr. Samir Chakraborty, and Shri Abhijit Biswas, ld.Advocate for M/s Oceanic Shipping Agency Pvt. Ltd.. We have also heard Shri V.K. Chaturvedi, ld. SDR for the respondent.</p><p>6. We have considered the submissions made by both the sides. The Commissioner in her order has observed that 292 pcs. of billets are in excess of four consignments imported by four Nepalese parties through four different clearing agents; that after the goods were taken delivery by the concerned parties, the excess quantity of 292 numbers billets were left in the docks and the same were seized by the DIU Officers. It is observed that the billets were not manifested as the full quantity was delivered to the concerned importers and even otherwise also no importer claimed the consignment found in excess. The appellants on the contrary are contending that the total 10070 pcs. of billets mentioned in the invoice are of the lengths varying from 4000 mm to 9000 mm and their weight is 5283.600 MT. As against these particulars mentioned in the shipping documents, the imported goods were sold on weight basis and as per the survey report of M/s A.G.S.Ltd. and M/s Lardner North and Company, the delivery was made to the concerned parties only of 5092.120 MT though the number of billets delivered to them is yet shown as 10070 pcs. Thus the quantity short delivered to them was 191.480 MT and this shortage represented 292 pcs.</p><p>still lying in the docks. Thus it is contended that the total number of pieces representing the imported quantity of 5283.600 MT was 10362 and not 10070 as mentioned in the shipping documents. It is further submitted that the appellants M/s Oceanic Shipping Agency Pvt. Ltd. subsequently on 13.1.96 has filed a supplementary IGM with the Assistant Commissioner of Customs, Import Department, Customs House, Calcutta for the aforesaid 292 pcs. for delivery to the four Nepalese consignees which has been permitted by the said authority. It is stated that the four buyers in Nepal had also lodged their claims on the consignors M/s ITD for the short delivery and the same has also been paid. We have considered these submissions. From the copies of the shipping documents and subsequent report of the surveyors, it clearly emerges that though the shipping documents referred to total number of pcs. of M.S. Billets as 10070 but this is obviously an approximate number on account of varying lengths of billets between 4000 mm to 9000 mm. The consignment was primarily shipped by weight which happened to 5283.600 MT. As per the two survey reports, the delivery made to the four consignees was only of 5092.120 MT and balance quantity of 191.480 MT related to the 292 billets lying in the docks after the delivery had been effected to the concerned parties. This is further supported by the fact that the Import Manifest was subsequently got amended by the steamer agents of the vessel through the A.C., Customs, Import Department and four Nepali buyers have also since been compensated by the consignor in respect of the quantity of the goods short delivered to them. In this view of the matter, therefore, there is no ground to hold that the impugned 292 pcs. of M.S. Billets were illegally imported and to order for their confiscation. Consequently, there is also no warrant to impose penalty either on the steamer agents or on the importers. These two appeals are, therefore, allowed, by setting aside the order of the Commissioner of Customs.', 'observations' => '', 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => '(2001)(136)ELT1396Tri(Kol.)kata', 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'Commr. of Customs (P), W.B.,', 'sub' => null, 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'oceanic-shipping-agency-pvt-vs-commr-customs' $args = array( (int) 0 => '23085', (int) 1 => 'oceanic-shipping-agency-pvt-vs-commr-customs' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/23085/oceanic-shipping-agency-pvt-vs-commr-customs' $ctype = '' $content = array( (int) 0 => ' 1. These are two appeals - one by M/s Oceanic Shipping Agency Pvt. Ltd. and another by M/s TISCO against the order dated 20.1.98/6.3.98 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), W.B., Calcutta.', (int) 1 => '<p>2. The brief facts of the case are that the officer of DIU (P) Unit of the Calcutta Customs House seized 292 pcs. of M.S. Billets of the size 100 mm x 100 mm x 4-9 mts. weighing 0.5247 MT per piece on 14.11.96 lying in the Shed. On enquiry, it was learnt that the vessel M.V.Svetlogorsk arrived at Calcutta Port on 14.9.96 and completed the discharge of it, cargo on 20.9.96. After delivery of full manifested quantity of 10070 pcs. of M.S. Billets by this vessel, 292 pcs. were left in the shed which were considered to be un-manifested and suspected to be cleared by the clearing agent/steamer agent and importers by way of manipulating the import documents. Accordingly, the said 292 pcs. of M.S. Billets were detained on 18.10.96.', (int) 2 => '<p>3. On further enquiry, Shri M.K. Mukherjee of M/s Oceanic Shipping Agency Pvt. Ltd.- the steamer agents in his statement dated 27.11.96 deposed that the vessel carried 10070 pcs. of M.S. Billets weighing 5283.600 MT as per relevant Bill of Lading that the subject consignment was imported by M/s TISCO as per the invoice number dated 28.7.96. This consignment was sold by M/s TISCO to four Nepalese consignees and whole of the consignment of 10070 pcs. had been delivered to such consignees.', (int) 3 => '<p>He stated that M/s Lardner North and Company and m/s A.G.S. India Ltd.- the surveyors were employed by them and M/s TISCO respectively for survey of the goods; that the goods were delivered but the weighment was done outside the docks. The survey report dated 17.10.96 of M/s Lardner North and Company certified 10070 pcs. of billets lying in the shed. M/s A.G.S. India also conducted the survey between 15.9.96 and 16.10.96 and certified that the importers received only 5029.12 MT instead of 5283.60 MT (Bill of Landing quantity).', (int) 4 => '<p>4. Accordingly the proceedings were initiated and a show-cause notice dated 14.3.97 was issued to M/s Oceanic Shipping Agency Pvt. Ltd. and M/s TISCO. These proceedings culminated in the Commissioner of Customs (P), Calcutta, W.B. passing an order dated 6.3.98/20.1.98 in which the Commissioner ordered for absolute confiscation of the impugned 292 pcs.', (int) 5 => '<p>of M.S. Billets and imposed a penalty of Rs. 10,00,000/- each on M/s Oceanic Shipping Agency Pvt. Ltd. and M/s TISCO under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962.', (int) 6 => '<p>5. Both the above named parties are in appeal against the Order of the Commissioner of Customs. We have heard Shri S.K. Bagaria, ld. Advocate for M/s TISCO and Dr. Samir Chakraborty, and Shri Abhijit Biswas, ld.Advocate for M/s Oceanic Shipping Agency Pvt. Ltd.. We have also heard Shri V.K. Chaturvedi, ld. SDR for the respondent.', (int) 7 => '<p>6. We have considered the submissions made by both the sides. The Commissioner in her order has observed that 292 pcs. of billets are in excess of four consignments imported by four Nepalese parties through four different clearing agents; that after the goods were taken delivery by the concerned parties, the excess quantity of 292 numbers billets were left in the docks and the same were seized by the DIU Officers. It is observed that the billets were not manifested as the full quantity was delivered to the concerned importers and even otherwise also no importer claimed the consignment found in excess. The appellants on the contrary are contending that the total 10070 pcs. of billets mentioned in the invoice are of the lengths varying from 4000 mm to 9000 mm and their weight is 5283.600 MT. As against these particulars mentioned in the shipping documents, the imported goods were sold on weight basis and as per the survey report of M/s A.G.S.Ltd. and M/s Lardner North and Company, the delivery was made to the concerned parties only of 5092.120 MT though the number of billets delivered to them is yet shown as 10070 pcs. Thus the quantity short delivered to them was 191.480 MT and this shortage represented 292 pcs.', (int) 8 => '<p>still lying in the docks. Thus it is contended that the total number of pieces representing the imported quantity of 5283.600 MT was 10362 and not 10070 as mentioned in the shipping documents. It is further submitted that the appellants M/s Oceanic Shipping Agency Pvt. Ltd. subsequently on 13.1.96 has filed a supplementary IGM with the Assistant Commissioner of Customs, Import Department, Customs House, Calcutta for the aforesaid 292 pcs. for delivery to the four Nepalese consignees which has been permitted by the said authority. It is stated that the four buyers in Nepal had also lodged their claims on the consignors M/s ITD for the short delivery and the same has also been paid. We have considered these submissions. From the copies of the shipping documents and subsequent report of the surveyors, it clearly emerges that though the shipping documents referred to total number of pcs. of M.S. Billets as 10070 but this is obviously an approximate number on account of varying lengths of billets between 4000 mm to 9000 mm. The consignment was primarily shipped by weight which happened to 5283.600 MT. As per the two survey reports, the delivery made to the four consignees was only of 5092.120 MT and balance quantity of 191.480 MT related to the 292 billets lying in the docks after the delivery had been effected to the concerned parties. This is further supported by the fact that the Import Manifest was subsequently got amended by the steamer agents of the vessel through the A.C., Customs, Import Department and four Nepali buyers have also since been compensated by the consignor in respect of the quantity of the goods short delivered to them. In this view of the matter, therefore, there is no ground to hold that the impugned 292 pcs. of M.S. Billets were illegally imported and to order for their confiscation. Consequently, there is also no warrant to impose penalty either on the steamer agents or on the importers. These two appeals are, therefore, allowed, by setting aside the order of the Commissioner of Customs.' ) $paragraphAfter = (int) 1 $cnt = (int) 9 $i = (int) 0include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Contextecho $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect');}echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'The Oceanic Shipping Agency Pvt Vs Commr of Customs P W B - Citation 23085 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '23085', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => null, 'appellant' => 'The Oceanic Shipping Agency Pvt.', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'The Oceanic Shipping Agency Pvt. Vs. Commr. of Customs (P), W.B.,', 'casenote' => '', 'caseanalysis' => '', 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Calcutta', 'court_type' => 'TRI', 'decidedon' => '2001-05-16', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => '', 'findings' => '', 'judge' => '', 'judgement' => ' 1. These are two appeals - one by M/s Oceanic Shipping Agency Pvt. Ltd. and another by M/s TISCO against the order dated 20.1.98/6.3.98 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), W.B., Calcutta.</p><p align="justify">2. The brief facts of the case are that the officer of DIU (P) Unit of the Calcutta Customs House seized 292 pcs. of M.S. Billets of the size 100 mm x 100 mm x 4-9 mts. weighing 0.5247 MT per piece on 14.11.96 lying in the Shed. On enquiry, it was learnt that the vessel M.V.Svetlogorsk arrived at Calcutta Port on 14.9.96 and completed the discharge of it, cargo on 20.9.96. After delivery of full manifested quantity of 10070 pcs. of M.S. Billets by this vessel, 292 pcs. were left in the shed which were considered to be un-manifested and suspected to be cleared by the clearing agent/steamer agent and importers by way of manipulating the import documents. Accordingly, the said 292 pcs. of M.S. Billets were detained on 18.10.96.</p><p align="justify">3. On further enquiry, Shri M.K. Mukherjee of M/s Oceanic Shipping Agency Pvt. Ltd.- the steamer agents in his statement dated 27.11.96 deposed that the vessel carried 10070 pcs. of M.S. Billets weighing 5283.600 MT as per relevant Bill of Lading that the subject consignment was imported by M/s TISCO as per the invoice number dated 28.7.96. This consignment was sold by M/s TISCO to four Nepalese consignees and whole of the consignment of 10070 pcs. had been delivered to such consignees.</p><p align="justify">He stated that M/s Lardner North and Company and m/s A.G.S. India Ltd.- the surveyors were employed by them and M/s TISCO respectively for survey of the goods; that the goods were delivered but the weighment was done outside the docks. The survey report dated 17.10.96 of M/s Lardner North and Company certified 10070 pcs. of billets lying in the shed. M/s A.G.S. India also conducted the survey between 15.9.96 and 16.10.96 and certified that the importers received only 5029.12 MT instead of 5283.60 MT (Bill of Landing quantity).</p><p align="justify">4. Accordingly the proceedings were initiated and a show-cause notice dated 14.3.97 was issued to M/s Oceanic Shipping Agency Pvt. Ltd. and M/s TISCO. These proceedings culminated in the Commissioner of Customs (P), Calcutta, W.B. passing an order dated 6.3.98/20.1.98 in which the Commissioner ordered for absolute confiscation of the impugned 292 pcs.</p><p align="justify">of M.S. Billets and imposed a penalty of Rs. 10,00,000/- each on M/s Oceanic Shipping Agency Pvt. Ltd. and M/s TISCO under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962.</p><p align="justify">5. Both the above named parties are in appeal against the Order of the Commissioner of Customs. We have heard Shri S.K. Bagaria, ld. Advocate for M/s TISCO and Dr. Samir Chakraborty, and Shri Abhijit Biswas, ld.Advocate for M/s Oceanic Shipping Agency Pvt. Ltd.. We have also heard Shri V.K. Chaturvedi, ld. SDR for the respondent.</p><p align="justify">6. We have considered the submissions made by both the sides. The Commissioner in her order has observed that 292 pcs. of billets are in excess of four consignments imported by four Nepalese parties through four different clearing agents; that after the goods were taken delivery by the concerned parties, the excess quantity of 292 numbers billets were left in the docks and the same were seized by the DIU Officers. It is observed that the billets were not manifested as the full quantity was delivered to the concerned importers and even otherwise also no importer claimed the consignment found in excess. The appellants on the contrary are contending that the total 10070 pcs. of billets mentioned in the invoice are of the lengths varying from 4000 mm to 9000 mm and their weight is 5283.600 MT. As against these particulars mentioned in the shipping documents, the imported goods were sold on weight basis and as per the survey report of M/s A.G.S.Ltd. and M/s Lardner North and Company, the delivery was made to the concerned parties only of 5092.120 MT though the number of billets delivered to them is yet shown as 10070 pcs. Thus the quantity short delivered to them was 191.480 MT and this shortage represented 292 pcs.</p><p align="justify">still lying in the docks. Thus it is contended that the total number of pieces representing the imported quantity of 5283.600 MT was 10362 and not 10070 as mentioned in the shipping documents. It is further submitted that the appellants M/s Oceanic Shipping Agency Pvt. Ltd. subsequently on 13.1.96 has filed a supplementary IGM with the Assistant Commissioner of Customs, Import Department, Customs House, Calcutta for the aforesaid 292 pcs. for delivery to the four Nepalese consignees which has been permitted by the said authority. It is stated that the four buyers in Nepal had also lodged their claims on the consignors M/s ITD for the short delivery and the same has also been paid. We have considered these submissions. From the copies of the shipping documents and subsequent report of the surveyors, it clearly emerges that though the shipping documents referred to total number of pcs. of M.S. Billets as 10070 but this is obviously an approximate number on account of varying lengths of billets between 4000 mm to 9000 mm. The consignment was primarily shipped by weight which happened to 5283.600 MT. As per the two survey reports, the delivery made to the four consignees was only of 5092.120 MT and balance quantity of 191.480 MT related to the 292 billets lying in the docks after the delivery had been effected to the concerned parties. This is further supported by the fact that the Import Manifest was subsequently got amended by the steamer agents of the vessel through the A.C., Customs, Import Department and four Nepali buyers have also since been compensated by the consignor in respect of the quantity of the goods short delivered to them. In this view of the matter, therefore, there is no ground to hold that the impugned 292 pcs. of M.S. Billets were illegally imported and to order for their confiscation. Consequently, there is also no warrant to impose penalty either on the steamer agents or on the importers. These two appeals are, therefore, allowed, by setting aside the order of the Commissioner of Customs.', 'observations' => '', 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => '(2001)(136)ELT1396Tri(Kol.)kata', 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'Commr. of Customs (P), W.B.,', 'sub' => null, 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'oceanic-shipping-agency-pvt-vs-commr-customs', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '23085', (int) 1 => 'oceanic-shipping-agency-pvt-vs-commr-customs' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'The Oceanic Shipping Agency Pvt Vs Commr of Customs P W B - Citation 23085 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '23085', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => null, 'appellant' => 'The Oceanic Shipping Agency Pvt.', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'The Oceanic Shipping Agency Pvt. Vs. Commr. of Customs (P), W.B.,', 'casenote' => '', 'caseanalysis' => '', 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Calcutta', 'court_type' => 'TRI', 'decidedon' => '2001-05-16', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => '', 'findings' => '', 'judge' => '', 'judgement' => ' 1. These are two appeals - one by M/s Oceanic Shipping Agency Pvt. Ltd. and another by M/s TISCO against the order dated 20.1.98/6.3.98 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), W.B., Calcutta.</p><p>2. The brief facts of the case are that the officer of DIU (P) Unit of the Calcutta Customs House seized 292 pcs. of M.S. Billets of the size 100 mm x 100 mm x 4-9 mts. weighing 0.5247 MT per piece on 14.11.96 lying in the Shed. On enquiry, it was learnt that the vessel M.V.Svetlogorsk arrived at Calcutta Port on 14.9.96 and completed the discharge of it, cargo on 20.9.96. After delivery of full manifested quantity of 10070 pcs. of M.S. Billets by this vessel, 292 pcs. were left in the shed which were considered to be un-manifested and suspected to be cleared by the clearing agent/steamer agent and importers by way of manipulating the import documents. Accordingly, the said 292 pcs. of M.S. Billets were detained on 18.10.96.</p><p>3. On further enquiry, Shri M.K. Mukherjee of M/s Oceanic Shipping Agency Pvt. Ltd.- the steamer agents in his statement dated 27.11.96 deposed that the vessel carried 10070 pcs. of M.S. Billets weighing 5283.600 MT as per relevant Bill of Lading that the subject consignment was imported by M/s TISCO as per the invoice number dated 28.7.96. This consignment was sold by M/s TISCO to four Nepalese consignees and whole of the consignment of 10070 pcs. had been delivered to such consignees.</p><p>He stated that M/s Lardner North and Company and m/s A.G.S. India Ltd.- the surveyors were employed by them and M/s TISCO respectively for survey of the goods; that the goods were delivered but the weighment was done outside the docks. The survey report dated 17.10.96 of M/s Lardner North and Company certified 10070 pcs. of billets lying in the shed. M/s A.G.S. India also conducted the survey between 15.9.96 and 16.10.96 and certified that the importers received only 5029.12 MT instead of 5283.60 MT (Bill of Landing quantity).</p><p>4. Accordingly the proceedings were initiated and a show-cause notice dated 14.3.97 was issued to M/s Oceanic Shipping Agency Pvt. Ltd. and M/s TISCO. These proceedings culminated in the Commissioner of Customs (P), Calcutta, W.B. passing an order dated 6.3.98/20.1.98 in which the Commissioner ordered for absolute confiscation of the impugned 292 pcs.</p><p>of M.S. Billets and imposed a penalty of Rs. 10,00,000/- each on M/s Oceanic Shipping Agency Pvt. Ltd. and M/s TISCO under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962.</p><p>5. Both the above named parties are in appeal against the Order of the Commissioner of Customs. We have heard Shri S.K. Bagaria, ld. Advocate for M/s TISCO and Dr. Samir Chakraborty, and Shri Abhijit Biswas, ld.Advocate for M/s Oceanic Shipping Agency Pvt. Ltd.. We have also heard Shri V.K. Chaturvedi, ld. SDR for the respondent.</p><p>6. We have considered the submissions made by both the sides. The Commissioner in her order has observed that 292 pcs. of billets are in excess of four consignments imported by four Nepalese parties through four different clearing agents; that after the goods were taken delivery by the concerned parties, the excess quantity of 292 numbers billets were left in the docks and the same were seized by the DIU Officers. It is observed that the billets were not manifested as the full quantity was delivered to the concerned importers and even otherwise also no importer claimed the consignment found in excess. The appellants on the contrary are contending that the total 10070 pcs. of billets mentioned in the invoice are of the lengths varying from 4000 mm to 9000 mm and their weight is 5283.600 MT. As against these particulars mentioned in the shipping documents, the imported goods were sold on weight basis and as per the survey report of M/s A.G.S.Ltd. and M/s Lardner North and Company, the delivery was made to the concerned parties only of 5092.120 MT though the number of billets delivered to them is yet shown as 10070 pcs. Thus the quantity short delivered to them was 191.480 MT and this shortage represented 292 pcs.</p><p>still lying in the docks. Thus it is contended that the total number of pieces representing the imported quantity of 5283.600 MT was 10362 and not 10070 as mentioned in the shipping documents. It is further submitted that the appellants M/s Oceanic Shipping Agency Pvt. Ltd. subsequently on 13.1.96 has filed a supplementary IGM with the Assistant Commissioner of Customs, Import Department, Customs House, Calcutta for the aforesaid 292 pcs. for delivery to the four Nepalese consignees which has been permitted by the said authority. It is stated that the four buyers in Nepal had also lodged their claims on the consignors M/s ITD for the short delivery and the same has also been paid. We have considered these submissions. From the copies of the shipping documents and subsequent report of the surveyors, it clearly emerges that though the shipping documents referred to total number of pcs. of M.S. Billets as 10070 but this is obviously an approximate number on account of varying lengths of billets between 4000 mm to 9000 mm. The consignment was primarily shipped by weight which happened to 5283.600 MT. As per the two survey reports, the delivery made to the four consignees was only of 5092.120 MT and balance quantity of 191.480 MT related to the 292 billets lying in the docks after the delivery had been effected to the concerned parties. This is further supported by the fact that the Import Manifest was subsequently got amended by the steamer agents of the vessel through the A.C., Customs, Import Department and four Nepali buyers have also since been compensated by the consignor in respect of the quantity of the goods short delivered to them. In this view of the matter, therefore, there is no ground to hold that the impugned 292 pcs. of M.S. Billets were illegally imported and to order for their confiscation. Consequently, there is also no warrant to impose penalty either on the steamer agents or on the importers. These two appeals are, therefore, allowed, by setting aside the order of the Commissioner of Customs.', 'observations' => '', 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => '(2001)(136)ELT1396Tri(Kol.)kata', 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'Commr. of Customs (P), W.B.,', 'sub' => null, 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'oceanic-shipping-agency-pvt-vs-commr-customs' $args = array( (int) 0 => '23085', (int) 1 => 'oceanic-shipping-agency-pvt-vs-commr-customs' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/23085/oceanic-shipping-agency-pvt-vs-commr-customs' $ctype = '' $content = array( (int) 0 => ' 1. These are two appeals - one by M/s Oceanic Shipping Agency Pvt. Ltd. and another by M/s TISCO against the order dated 20.1.98/6.3.98 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), W.B., Calcutta.', (int) 1 => '<p>2. The brief facts of the case are that the officer of DIU (P) Unit of the Calcutta Customs House seized 292 pcs. of M.S. Billets of the size 100 mm x 100 mm x 4-9 mts. weighing 0.5247 MT per piece on 14.11.96 lying in the Shed. On enquiry, it was learnt that the vessel M.V.Svetlogorsk arrived at Calcutta Port on 14.9.96 and completed the discharge of it, cargo on 20.9.96. After delivery of full manifested quantity of 10070 pcs. of M.S. Billets by this vessel, 292 pcs. were left in the shed which were considered to be un-manifested and suspected to be cleared by the clearing agent/steamer agent and importers by way of manipulating the import documents. Accordingly, the said 292 pcs. of M.S. Billets were detained on 18.10.96.', (int) 2 => '<p>3. On further enquiry, Shri M.K. Mukherjee of M/s Oceanic Shipping Agency Pvt. Ltd.- the steamer agents in his statement dated 27.11.96 deposed that the vessel carried 10070 pcs. of M.S. Billets weighing 5283.600 MT as per relevant Bill of Lading that the subject consignment was imported by M/s TISCO as per the invoice number dated 28.7.96. This consignment was sold by M/s TISCO to four Nepalese consignees and whole of the consignment of 10070 pcs. had been delivered to such consignees.', (int) 3 => '<p>He stated that M/s Lardner North and Company and m/s A.G.S. India Ltd.- the surveyors were employed by them and M/s TISCO respectively for survey of the goods; that the goods were delivered but the weighment was done outside the docks. The survey report dated 17.10.96 of M/s Lardner North and Company certified 10070 pcs. of billets lying in the shed. M/s A.G.S. India also conducted the survey between 15.9.96 and 16.10.96 and certified that the importers received only 5029.12 MT instead of 5283.60 MT (Bill of Landing quantity).', (int) 4 => '<p>4. Accordingly the proceedings were initiated and a show-cause notice dated 14.3.97 was issued to M/s Oceanic Shipping Agency Pvt. Ltd. and M/s TISCO. These proceedings culminated in the Commissioner of Customs (P), Calcutta, W.B. passing an order dated 6.3.98/20.1.98 in which the Commissioner ordered for absolute confiscation of the impugned 292 pcs.', (int) 5 => '<p>of M.S. Billets and imposed a penalty of Rs. 10,00,000/- each on M/s Oceanic Shipping Agency Pvt. Ltd. and M/s TISCO under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962.', (int) 6 => '<p>5. Both the above named parties are in appeal against the Order of the Commissioner of Customs. We have heard Shri S.K. Bagaria, ld. Advocate for M/s TISCO and Dr. Samir Chakraborty, and Shri Abhijit Biswas, ld.Advocate for M/s Oceanic Shipping Agency Pvt. Ltd.. We have also heard Shri V.K. Chaturvedi, ld. SDR for the respondent.', (int) 7 => '<p>6. We have considered the submissions made by both the sides. The Commissioner in her order has observed that 292 pcs. of billets are in excess of four consignments imported by four Nepalese parties through four different clearing agents; that after the goods were taken delivery by the concerned parties, the excess quantity of 292 numbers billets were left in the docks and the same were seized by the DIU Officers. It is observed that the billets were not manifested as the full quantity was delivered to the concerned importers and even otherwise also no importer claimed the consignment found in excess. The appellants on the contrary are contending that the total 10070 pcs. of billets mentioned in the invoice are of the lengths varying from 4000 mm to 9000 mm and their weight is 5283.600 MT. As against these particulars mentioned in the shipping documents, the imported goods were sold on weight basis and as per the survey report of M/s A.G.S.Ltd. and M/s Lardner North and Company, the delivery was made to the concerned parties only of 5092.120 MT though the number of billets delivered to them is yet shown as 10070 pcs. Thus the quantity short delivered to them was 191.480 MT and this shortage represented 292 pcs.', (int) 8 => '<p>still lying in the docks. Thus it is contended that the total number of pieces representing the imported quantity of 5283.600 MT was 10362 and not 10070 as mentioned in the shipping documents. It is further submitted that the appellants M/s Oceanic Shipping Agency Pvt. Ltd. subsequently on 13.1.96 has filed a supplementary IGM with the Assistant Commissioner of Customs, Import Department, Customs House, Calcutta for the aforesaid 292 pcs. for delivery to the four Nepalese consignees which has been permitted by the said authority. It is stated that the four buyers in Nepal had also lodged their claims on the consignors M/s ITD for the short delivery and the same has also been paid. We have considered these submissions. From the copies of the shipping documents and subsequent report of the surveyors, it clearly emerges that though the shipping documents referred to total number of pcs. of M.S. Billets as 10070 but this is obviously an approximate number on account of varying lengths of billets between 4000 mm to 9000 mm. The consignment was primarily shipped by weight which happened to 5283.600 MT. As per the two survey reports, the delivery made to the four consignees was only of 5092.120 MT and balance quantity of 191.480 MT related to the 292 billets lying in the docks after the delivery had been effected to the concerned parties. This is further supported by the fact that the Import Manifest was subsequently got amended by the steamer agents of the vessel through the A.C., Customs, Import Department and four Nepali buyers have also since been compensated by the consignor in respect of the quantity of the goods short delivered to them. In this view of the matter, therefore, there is no ground to hold that the impugned 292 pcs. of M.S. Billets were illegally imported and to order for their confiscation. Consequently, there is also no warrant to impose penalty either on the steamer agents or on the importers. These two appeals are, therefore, allowed, by setting aside the order of the Commissioner of Customs.' ) $paragraphAfter = (int) 1 $cnt = (int) 9 $i = (int) 1include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
2. The brief facts of the case are that the officer of DIU (P) Unit of the Calcutta Customs House seized 292 pcs. of M.S. Billets of the size 100 mm x 100 mm x 4-9 mts. weighing 0.5247 MT per piece on 14.11.96 lying in the Shed. On enquiry, it was learnt that the vessel M.V.Svetlogorsk arrived at Calcutta Port on 14.9.96 and completed the discharge of it, cargo on 20.9.96. After delivery of full manifested quantity of 10070 pcs. of M.S. Billets by this vessel, 292 pcs. were left in the shed which were considered to be un-manifested and suspected to be cleared by the clearing agent/steamer agent and importers by way of manipulating the import documents. Accordingly, the said 292 pcs. of M.S. Billets were detained on 18.10.96.
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Contextecho $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect');}echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'The Oceanic Shipping Agency Pvt Vs Commr of Customs P W B - Citation 23085 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '23085', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => null, 'appellant' => 'The Oceanic Shipping Agency Pvt.', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'The Oceanic Shipping Agency Pvt. Vs. Commr. of Customs (P), W.B.,', 'casenote' => '', 'caseanalysis' => '', 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Calcutta', 'court_type' => 'TRI', 'decidedon' => '2001-05-16', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => '', 'findings' => '', 'judge' => '', 'judgement' => ' 1. These are two appeals - one by M/s Oceanic Shipping Agency Pvt. Ltd. and another by M/s TISCO against the order dated 20.1.98/6.3.98 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), W.B., Calcutta.</p><p align="justify">2. The brief facts of the case are that the officer of DIU (P) Unit of the Calcutta Customs House seized 292 pcs. of M.S. Billets of the size 100 mm x 100 mm x 4-9 mts. weighing 0.5247 MT per piece on 14.11.96 lying in the Shed. On enquiry, it was learnt that the vessel M.V.Svetlogorsk arrived at Calcutta Port on 14.9.96 and completed the discharge of it, cargo on 20.9.96. After delivery of full manifested quantity of 10070 pcs. of M.S. Billets by this vessel, 292 pcs. were left in the shed which were considered to be un-manifested and suspected to be cleared by the clearing agent/steamer agent and importers by way of manipulating the import documents. Accordingly, the said 292 pcs. of M.S. Billets were detained on 18.10.96.</p><p align="justify">3. On further enquiry, Shri M.K. Mukherjee of M/s Oceanic Shipping Agency Pvt. Ltd.- the steamer agents in his statement dated 27.11.96 deposed that the vessel carried 10070 pcs. of M.S. Billets weighing 5283.600 MT as per relevant Bill of Lading that the subject consignment was imported by M/s TISCO as per the invoice number dated 28.7.96. This consignment was sold by M/s TISCO to four Nepalese consignees and whole of the consignment of 10070 pcs. had been delivered to such consignees.</p><p align="justify">He stated that M/s Lardner North and Company and m/s A.G.S. India Ltd.- the surveyors were employed by them and M/s TISCO respectively for survey of the goods; that the goods were delivered but the weighment was done outside the docks. The survey report dated 17.10.96 of M/s Lardner North and Company certified 10070 pcs. of billets lying in the shed. M/s A.G.S. India also conducted the survey between 15.9.96 and 16.10.96 and certified that the importers received only 5029.12 MT instead of 5283.60 MT (Bill of Landing quantity).</p><p align="justify">4. Accordingly the proceedings were initiated and a show-cause notice dated 14.3.97 was issued to M/s Oceanic Shipping Agency Pvt. Ltd. and M/s TISCO. These proceedings culminated in the Commissioner of Customs (P), Calcutta, W.B. passing an order dated 6.3.98/20.1.98 in which the Commissioner ordered for absolute confiscation of the impugned 292 pcs.</p><p align="justify">of M.S. Billets and imposed a penalty of Rs. 10,00,000/- each on M/s Oceanic Shipping Agency Pvt. Ltd. and M/s TISCO under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962.</p><p align="justify">5. Both the above named parties are in appeal against the Order of the Commissioner of Customs. We have heard Shri S.K. Bagaria, ld. Advocate for M/s TISCO and Dr. Samir Chakraborty, and Shri Abhijit Biswas, ld.Advocate for M/s Oceanic Shipping Agency Pvt. Ltd.. We have also heard Shri V.K. Chaturvedi, ld. SDR for the respondent.</p><p align="justify">6. We have considered the submissions made by both the sides. The Commissioner in her order has observed that 292 pcs. of billets are in excess of four consignments imported by four Nepalese parties through four different clearing agents; that after the goods were taken delivery by the concerned parties, the excess quantity of 292 numbers billets were left in the docks and the same were seized by the DIU Officers. It is observed that the billets were not manifested as the full quantity was delivered to the concerned importers and even otherwise also no importer claimed the consignment found in excess. The appellants on the contrary are contending that the total 10070 pcs. of billets mentioned in the invoice are of the lengths varying from 4000 mm to 9000 mm and their weight is 5283.600 MT. As against these particulars mentioned in the shipping documents, the imported goods were sold on weight basis and as per the survey report of M/s A.G.S.Ltd. and M/s Lardner North and Company, the delivery was made to the concerned parties only of 5092.120 MT though the number of billets delivered to them is yet shown as 10070 pcs. Thus the quantity short delivered to them was 191.480 MT and this shortage represented 292 pcs.</p><p align="justify">still lying in the docks. Thus it is contended that the total number of pieces representing the imported quantity of 5283.600 MT was 10362 and not 10070 as mentioned in the shipping documents. It is further submitted that the appellants M/s Oceanic Shipping Agency Pvt. Ltd. subsequently on 13.1.96 has filed a supplementary IGM with the Assistant Commissioner of Customs, Import Department, Customs House, Calcutta for the aforesaid 292 pcs. for delivery to the four Nepalese consignees which has been permitted by the said authority. It is stated that the four buyers in Nepal had also lodged their claims on the consignors M/s ITD for the short delivery and the same has also been paid. We have considered these submissions. From the copies of the shipping documents and subsequent report of the surveyors, it clearly emerges that though the shipping documents referred to total number of pcs. of M.S. Billets as 10070 but this is obviously an approximate number on account of varying lengths of billets between 4000 mm to 9000 mm. The consignment was primarily shipped by weight which happened to 5283.600 MT. As per the two survey reports, the delivery made to the four consignees was only of 5092.120 MT and balance quantity of 191.480 MT related to the 292 billets lying in the docks after the delivery had been effected to the concerned parties. This is further supported by the fact that the Import Manifest was subsequently got amended by the steamer agents of the vessel through the A.C., Customs, Import Department and four Nepali buyers have also since been compensated by the consignor in respect of the quantity of the goods short delivered to them. In this view of the matter, therefore, there is no ground to hold that the impugned 292 pcs. of M.S. Billets were illegally imported and to order for their confiscation. Consequently, there is also no warrant to impose penalty either on the steamer agents or on the importers. These two appeals are, therefore, allowed, by setting aside the order of the Commissioner of Customs.', 'observations' => '', 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => '(2001)(136)ELT1396Tri(Kol.)kata', 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'Commr. of Customs (P), W.B.,', 'sub' => null, 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'oceanic-shipping-agency-pvt-vs-commr-customs', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '23085', (int) 1 => 'oceanic-shipping-agency-pvt-vs-commr-customs' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'The Oceanic Shipping Agency Pvt Vs Commr of Customs P W B - Citation 23085 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '23085', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => null, 'appellant' => 'The Oceanic Shipping Agency Pvt.', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'The Oceanic Shipping Agency Pvt. Vs. Commr. of Customs (P), W.B.,', 'casenote' => '', 'caseanalysis' => '', 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Calcutta', 'court_type' => 'TRI', 'decidedon' => '2001-05-16', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => '', 'findings' => '', 'judge' => '', 'judgement' => ' 1. These are two appeals - one by M/s Oceanic Shipping Agency Pvt. Ltd. and another by M/s TISCO against the order dated 20.1.98/6.3.98 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), W.B., Calcutta.</p><p>2. The brief facts of the case are that the officer of DIU (P) Unit of the Calcutta Customs House seized 292 pcs. of M.S. Billets of the size 100 mm x 100 mm x 4-9 mts. weighing 0.5247 MT per piece on 14.11.96 lying in the Shed. On enquiry, it was learnt that the vessel M.V.Svetlogorsk arrived at Calcutta Port on 14.9.96 and completed the discharge of it, cargo on 20.9.96. After delivery of full manifested quantity of 10070 pcs. of M.S. Billets by this vessel, 292 pcs. were left in the shed which were considered to be un-manifested and suspected to be cleared by the clearing agent/steamer agent and importers by way of manipulating the import documents. Accordingly, the said 292 pcs. of M.S. Billets were detained on 18.10.96.</p><p>3. On further enquiry, Shri M.K. Mukherjee of M/s Oceanic Shipping Agency Pvt. Ltd.- the steamer agents in his statement dated 27.11.96 deposed that the vessel carried 10070 pcs. of M.S. Billets weighing 5283.600 MT as per relevant Bill of Lading that the subject consignment was imported by M/s TISCO as per the invoice number dated 28.7.96. This consignment was sold by M/s TISCO to four Nepalese consignees and whole of the consignment of 10070 pcs. had been delivered to such consignees.</p><p>He stated that M/s Lardner North and Company and m/s A.G.S. India Ltd.- the surveyors were employed by them and M/s TISCO respectively for survey of the goods; that the goods were delivered but the weighment was done outside the docks. The survey report dated 17.10.96 of M/s Lardner North and Company certified 10070 pcs. of billets lying in the shed. M/s A.G.S. India also conducted the survey between 15.9.96 and 16.10.96 and certified that the importers received only 5029.12 MT instead of 5283.60 MT (Bill of Landing quantity).</p><p>4. Accordingly the proceedings were initiated and a show-cause notice dated 14.3.97 was issued to M/s Oceanic Shipping Agency Pvt. Ltd. and M/s TISCO. These proceedings culminated in the Commissioner of Customs (P), Calcutta, W.B. passing an order dated 6.3.98/20.1.98 in which the Commissioner ordered for absolute confiscation of the impugned 292 pcs.</p><p>of M.S. Billets and imposed a penalty of Rs. 10,00,000/- each on M/s Oceanic Shipping Agency Pvt. Ltd. and M/s TISCO under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962.</p><p>5. Both the above named parties are in appeal against the Order of the Commissioner of Customs. We have heard Shri S.K. Bagaria, ld. Advocate for M/s TISCO and Dr. Samir Chakraborty, and Shri Abhijit Biswas, ld.Advocate for M/s Oceanic Shipping Agency Pvt. Ltd.. We have also heard Shri V.K. Chaturvedi, ld. SDR for the respondent.</p><p>6. We have considered the submissions made by both the sides. The Commissioner in her order has observed that 292 pcs. of billets are in excess of four consignments imported by four Nepalese parties through four different clearing agents; that after the goods were taken delivery by the concerned parties, the excess quantity of 292 numbers billets were left in the docks and the same were seized by the DIU Officers. It is observed that the billets were not manifested as the full quantity was delivered to the concerned importers and even otherwise also no importer claimed the consignment found in excess. The appellants on the contrary are contending that the total 10070 pcs. of billets mentioned in the invoice are of the lengths varying from 4000 mm to 9000 mm and their weight is 5283.600 MT. As against these particulars mentioned in the shipping documents, the imported goods were sold on weight basis and as per the survey report of M/s A.G.S.Ltd. and M/s Lardner North and Company, the delivery was made to the concerned parties only of 5092.120 MT though the number of billets delivered to them is yet shown as 10070 pcs. Thus the quantity short delivered to them was 191.480 MT and this shortage represented 292 pcs.</p><p>still lying in the docks. Thus it is contended that the total number of pieces representing the imported quantity of 5283.600 MT was 10362 and not 10070 as mentioned in the shipping documents. It is further submitted that the appellants M/s Oceanic Shipping Agency Pvt. Ltd. subsequently on 13.1.96 has filed a supplementary IGM with the Assistant Commissioner of Customs, Import Department, Customs House, Calcutta for the aforesaid 292 pcs. for delivery to the four Nepalese consignees which has been permitted by the said authority. It is stated that the four buyers in Nepal had also lodged their claims on the consignors M/s ITD for the short delivery and the same has also been paid. We have considered these submissions. From the copies of the shipping documents and subsequent report of the surveyors, it clearly emerges that though the shipping documents referred to total number of pcs. of M.S. Billets as 10070 but this is obviously an approximate number on account of varying lengths of billets between 4000 mm to 9000 mm. The consignment was primarily shipped by weight which happened to 5283.600 MT. As per the two survey reports, the delivery made to the four consignees was only of 5092.120 MT and balance quantity of 191.480 MT related to the 292 billets lying in the docks after the delivery had been effected to the concerned parties. This is further supported by the fact that the Import Manifest was subsequently got amended by the steamer agents of the vessel through the A.C., Customs, Import Department and four Nepali buyers have also since been compensated by the consignor in respect of the quantity of the goods short delivered to them. In this view of the matter, therefore, there is no ground to hold that the impugned 292 pcs. of M.S. Billets were illegally imported and to order for their confiscation. Consequently, there is also no warrant to impose penalty either on the steamer agents or on the importers. These two appeals are, therefore, allowed, by setting aside the order of the Commissioner of Customs.', 'observations' => '', 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => '(2001)(136)ELT1396Tri(Kol.)kata', 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'Commr. of Customs (P), W.B.,', 'sub' => null, 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'oceanic-shipping-agency-pvt-vs-commr-customs' $args = array( (int) 0 => '23085', (int) 1 => 'oceanic-shipping-agency-pvt-vs-commr-customs' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/23085/oceanic-shipping-agency-pvt-vs-commr-customs' $ctype = '' $content = array( (int) 0 => ' 1. These are two appeals - one by M/s Oceanic Shipping Agency Pvt. Ltd. and another by M/s TISCO against the order dated 20.1.98/6.3.98 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), W.B., Calcutta.', (int) 1 => '<p>2. The brief facts of the case are that the officer of DIU (P) Unit of the Calcutta Customs House seized 292 pcs. of M.S. Billets of the size 100 mm x 100 mm x 4-9 mts. weighing 0.5247 MT per piece on 14.11.96 lying in the Shed. On enquiry, it was learnt that the vessel M.V.Svetlogorsk arrived at Calcutta Port on 14.9.96 and completed the discharge of it, cargo on 20.9.96. After delivery of full manifested quantity of 10070 pcs. of M.S. Billets by this vessel, 292 pcs. were left in the shed which were considered to be un-manifested and suspected to be cleared by the clearing agent/steamer agent and importers by way of manipulating the import documents. Accordingly, the said 292 pcs. of M.S. Billets were detained on 18.10.96.', (int) 2 => '<p>3. On further enquiry, Shri M.K. Mukherjee of M/s Oceanic Shipping Agency Pvt. Ltd.- the steamer agents in his statement dated 27.11.96 deposed that the vessel carried 10070 pcs. of M.S. Billets weighing 5283.600 MT as per relevant Bill of Lading that the subject consignment was imported by M/s TISCO as per the invoice number dated 28.7.96. This consignment was sold by M/s TISCO to four Nepalese consignees and whole of the consignment of 10070 pcs. had been delivered to such consignees.', (int) 3 => '<p>He stated that M/s Lardner North and Company and m/s A.G.S. India Ltd.- the surveyors were employed by them and M/s TISCO respectively for survey of the goods; that the goods were delivered but the weighment was done outside the docks. The survey report dated 17.10.96 of M/s Lardner North and Company certified 10070 pcs. of billets lying in the shed. M/s A.G.S. India also conducted the survey between 15.9.96 and 16.10.96 and certified that the importers received only 5029.12 MT instead of 5283.60 MT (Bill of Landing quantity).', (int) 4 => '<p>4. Accordingly the proceedings were initiated and a show-cause notice dated 14.3.97 was issued to M/s Oceanic Shipping Agency Pvt. Ltd. and M/s TISCO. These proceedings culminated in the Commissioner of Customs (P), Calcutta, W.B. passing an order dated 6.3.98/20.1.98 in which the Commissioner ordered for absolute confiscation of the impugned 292 pcs.', (int) 5 => '<p>of M.S. Billets and imposed a penalty of Rs. 10,00,000/- each on M/s Oceanic Shipping Agency Pvt. Ltd. and M/s TISCO under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962.', (int) 6 => '<p>5. Both the above named parties are in appeal against the Order of the Commissioner of Customs. We have heard Shri S.K. Bagaria, ld. Advocate for M/s TISCO and Dr. Samir Chakraborty, and Shri Abhijit Biswas, ld.Advocate for M/s Oceanic Shipping Agency Pvt. Ltd.. We have also heard Shri V.K. Chaturvedi, ld. SDR for the respondent.', (int) 7 => '<p>6. We have considered the submissions made by both the sides. The Commissioner in her order has observed that 292 pcs. of billets are in excess of four consignments imported by four Nepalese parties through four different clearing agents; that after the goods were taken delivery by the concerned parties, the excess quantity of 292 numbers billets were left in the docks and the same were seized by the DIU Officers. It is observed that the billets were not manifested as the full quantity was delivered to the concerned importers and even otherwise also no importer claimed the consignment found in excess. The appellants on the contrary are contending that the total 10070 pcs. of billets mentioned in the invoice are of the lengths varying from 4000 mm to 9000 mm and their weight is 5283.600 MT. As against these particulars mentioned in the shipping documents, the imported goods were sold on weight basis and as per the survey report of M/s A.G.S.Ltd. and M/s Lardner North and Company, the delivery was made to the concerned parties only of 5092.120 MT though the number of billets delivered to them is yet shown as 10070 pcs. Thus the quantity short delivered to them was 191.480 MT and this shortage represented 292 pcs.', (int) 8 => '<p>still lying in the docks. Thus it is contended that the total number of pieces representing the imported quantity of 5283.600 MT was 10362 and not 10070 as mentioned in the shipping documents. It is further submitted that the appellants M/s Oceanic Shipping Agency Pvt. Ltd. subsequently on 13.1.96 has filed a supplementary IGM with the Assistant Commissioner of Customs, Import Department, Customs House, Calcutta for the aforesaid 292 pcs. for delivery to the four Nepalese consignees which has been permitted by the said authority. It is stated that the four buyers in Nepal had also lodged their claims on the consignors M/s ITD for the short delivery and the same has also been paid. We have considered these submissions. From the copies of the shipping documents and subsequent report of the surveyors, it clearly emerges that though the shipping documents referred to total number of pcs. of M.S. Billets as 10070 but this is obviously an approximate number on account of varying lengths of billets between 4000 mm to 9000 mm. The consignment was primarily shipped by weight which happened to 5283.600 MT. As per the two survey reports, the delivery made to the four consignees was only of 5092.120 MT and balance quantity of 191.480 MT related to the 292 billets lying in the docks after the delivery had been effected to the concerned parties. This is further supported by the fact that the Import Manifest was subsequently got amended by the steamer agents of the vessel through the A.C., Customs, Import Department and four Nepali buyers have also since been compensated by the consignor in respect of the quantity of the goods short delivered to them. In this view of the matter, therefore, there is no ground to hold that the impugned 292 pcs. of M.S. Billets were illegally imported and to order for their confiscation. Consequently, there is also no warrant to impose penalty either on the steamer agents or on the importers. These two appeals are, therefore, allowed, by setting aside the order of the Commissioner of Customs.' ) $paragraphAfter = (int) 1 $cnt = (int) 9 $i = (int) 2include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
3. On further enquiry, Shri M.K. Mukherjee of M/s Oceanic Shipping Agency Pvt. Ltd.- the steamer agents in his statement dated 27.11.96 deposed that the vessel carried 10070 pcs. of M.S. Billets weighing 5283.600 MT as per relevant Bill of Lading that the subject consignment was imported by M/s TISCO as per the invoice number dated 28.7.96. This consignment was sold by M/s TISCO to four Nepalese consignees and whole of the consignment of 10070 pcs. had been delivered to such consignees.
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Contextecho $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect');}echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'The Oceanic Shipping Agency Pvt Vs Commr of Customs P W B - Citation 23085 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '23085', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => null, 'appellant' => 'The Oceanic Shipping Agency Pvt.', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'The Oceanic Shipping Agency Pvt. Vs. Commr. of Customs (P), W.B.,', 'casenote' => '', 'caseanalysis' => '', 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Calcutta', 'court_type' => 'TRI', 'decidedon' => '2001-05-16', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => '', 'findings' => '', 'judge' => '', 'judgement' => ' 1. These are two appeals - one by M/s Oceanic Shipping Agency Pvt. Ltd. and another by M/s TISCO against the order dated 20.1.98/6.3.98 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), W.B., Calcutta.</p><p align="justify">2. The brief facts of the case are that the officer of DIU (P) Unit of the Calcutta Customs House seized 292 pcs. of M.S. Billets of the size 100 mm x 100 mm x 4-9 mts. weighing 0.5247 MT per piece on 14.11.96 lying in the Shed. On enquiry, it was learnt that the vessel M.V.Svetlogorsk arrived at Calcutta Port on 14.9.96 and completed the discharge of it, cargo on 20.9.96. After delivery of full manifested quantity of 10070 pcs. of M.S. Billets by this vessel, 292 pcs. were left in the shed which were considered to be un-manifested and suspected to be cleared by the clearing agent/steamer agent and importers by way of manipulating the import documents. Accordingly, the said 292 pcs. of M.S. Billets were detained on 18.10.96.</p><p align="justify">3. On further enquiry, Shri M.K. Mukherjee of M/s Oceanic Shipping Agency Pvt. Ltd.- the steamer agents in his statement dated 27.11.96 deposed that the vessel carried 10070 pcs. of M.S. Billets weighing 5283.600 MT as per relevant Bill of Lading that the subject consignment was imported by M/s TISCO as per the invoice number dated 28.7.96. This consignment was sold by M/s TISCO to four Nepalese consignees and whole of the consignment of 10070 pcs. had been delivered to such consignees.</p><p align="justify">He stated that M/s Lardner North and Company and m/s A.G.S. India Ltd.- the surveyors were employed by them and M/s TISCO respectively for survey of the goods; that the goods were delivered but the weighment was done outside the docks. The survey report dated 17.10.96 of M/s Lardner North and Company certified 10070 pcs. of billets lying in the shed. M/s A.G.S. India also conducted the survey between 15.9.96 and 16.10.96 and certified that the importers received only 5029.12 MT instead of 5283.60 MT (Bill of Landing quantity).</p><p align="justify">4. Accordingly the proceedings were initiated and a show-cause notice dated 14.3.97 was issued to M/s Oceanic Shipping Agency Pvt. Ltd. and M/s TISCO. These proceedings culminated in the Commissioner of Customs (P), Calcutta, W.B. passing an order dated 6.3.98/20.1.98 in which the Commissioner ordered for absolute confiscation of the impugned 292 pcs.</p><p align="justify">of M.S. Billets and imposed a penalty of Rs. 10,00,000/- each on M/s Oceanic Shipping Agency Pvt. Ltd. and M/s TISCO under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962.</p><p align="justify">5. Both the above named parties are in appeal against the Order of the Commissioner of Customs. We have heard Shri S.K. Bagaria, ld. Advocate for M/s TISCO and Dr. Samir Chakraborty, and Shri Abhijit Biswas, ld.Advocate for M/s Oceanic Shipping Agency Pvt. Ltd.. We have also heard Shri V.K. Chaturvedi, ld. SDR for the respondent.</p><p align="justify">6. We have considered the submissions made by both the sides. The Commissioner in her order has observed that 292 pcs. of billets are in excess of four consignments imported by four Nepalese parties through four different clearing agents; that after the goods were taken delivery by the concerned parties, the excess quantity of 292 numbers billets were left in the docks and the same were seized by the DIU Officers. It is observed that the billets were not manifested as the full quantity was delivered to the concerned importers and even otherwise also no importer claimed the consignment found in excess. The appellants on the contrary are contending that the total 10070 pcs. of billets mentioned in the invoice are of the lengths varying from 4000 mm to 9000 mm and their weight is 5283.600 MT. As against these particulars mentioned in the shipping documents, the imported goods were sold on weight basis and as per the survey report of M/s A.G.S.Ltd. and M/s Lardner North and Company, the delivery was made to the concerned parties only of 5092.120 MT though the number of billets delivered to them is yet shown as 10070 pcs. Thus the quantity short delivered to them was 191.480 MT and this shortage represented 292 pcs.</p><p align="justify">still lying in the docks. Thus it is contended that the total number of pieces representing the imported quantity of 5283.600 MT was 10362 and not 10070 as mentioned in the shipping documents. It is further submitted that the appellants M/s Oceanic Shipping Agency Pvt. Ltd. subsequently on 13.1.96 has filed a supplementary IGM with the Assistant Commissioner of Customs, Import Department, Customs House, Calcutta for the aforesaid 292 pcs. for delivery to the four Nepalese consignees which has been permitted by the said authority. It is stated that the four buyers in Nepal had also lodged their claims on the consignors M/s ITD for the short delivery and the same has also been paid. We have considered these submissions. From the copies of the shipping documents and subsequent report of the surveyors, it clearly emerges that though the shipping documents referred to total number of pcs. of M.S. Billets as 10070 but this is obviously an approximate number on account of varying lengths of billets between 4000 mm to 9000 mm. The consignment was primarily shipped by weight which happened to 5283.600 MT. As per the two survey reports, the delivery made to the four consignees was only of 5092.120 MT and balance quantity of 191.480 MT related to the 292 billets lying in the docks after the delivery had been effected to the concerned parties. This is further supported by the fact that the Import Manifest was subsequently got amended by the steamer agents of the vessel through the A.C., Customs, Import Department and four Nepali buyers have also since been compensated by the consignor in respect of the quantity of the goods short delivered to them. In this view of the matter, therefore, there is no ground to hold that the impugned 292 pcs. of M.S. Billets were illegally imported and to order for their confiscation. Consequently, there is also no warrant to impose penalty either on the steamer agents or on the importers. These two appeals are, therefore, allowed, by setting aside the order of the Commissioner of Customs.', 'observations' => '', 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => '(2001)(136)ELT1396Tri(Kol.)kata', 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'Commr. of Customs (P), W.B.,', 'sub' => null, 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'oceanic-shipping-agency-pvt-vs-commr-customs', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '23085', (int) 1 => 'oceanic-shipping-agency-pvt-vs-commr-customs' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'The Oceanic Shipping Agency Pvt Vs Commr of Customs P W B - Citation 23085 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '23085', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => null, 'appellant' => 'The Oceanic Shipping Agency Pvt.', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'The Oceanic Shipping Agency Pvt. Vs. Commr. of Customs (P), W.B.,', 'casenote' => '', 'caseanalysis' => '', 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Calcutta', 'court_type' => 'TRI', 'decidedon' => '2001-05-16', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => '', 'findings' => '', 'judge' => '', 'judgement' => ' 1. These are two appeals - one by M/s Oceanic Shipping Agency Pvt. Ltd. and another by M/s TISCO against the order dated 20.1.98/6.3.98 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), W.B., Calcutta.</p><p>2. The brief facts of the case are that the officer of DIU (P) Unit of the Calcutta Customs House seized 292 pcs. of M.S. Billets of the size 100 mm x 100 mm x 4-9 mts. weighing 0.5247 MT per piece on 14.11.96 lying in the Shed. On enquiry, it was learnt that the vessel M.V.Svetlogorsk arrived at Calcutta Port on 14.9.96 and completed the discharge of it, cargo on 20.9.96. After delivery of full manifested quantity of 10070 pcs. of M.S. Billets by this vessel, 292 pcs. were left in the shed which were considered to be un-manifested and suspected to be cleared by the clearing agent/steamer agent and importers by way of manipulating the import documents. Accordingly, the said 292 pcs. of M.S. Billets were detained on 18.10.96.</p><p>3. On further enquiry, Shri M.K. Mukherjee of M/s Oceanic Shipping Agency Pvt. Ltd.- the steamer agents in his statement dated 27.11.96 deposed that the vessel carried 10070 pcs. of M.S. Billets weighing 5283.600 MT as per relevant Bill of Lading that the subject consignment was imported by M/s TISCO as per the invoice number dated 28.7.96. This consignment was sold by M/s TISCO to four Nepalese consignees and whole of the consignment of 10070 pcs. had been delivered to such consignees.</p><p>He stated that M/s Lardner North and Company and m/s A.G.S. India Ltd.- the surveyors were employed by them and M/s TISCO respectively for survey of the goods; that the goods were delivered but the weighment was done outside the docks. The survey report dated 17.10.96 of M/s Lardner North and Company certified 10070 pcs. of billets lying in the shed. M/s A.G.S. India also conducted the survey between 15.9.96 and 16.10.96 and certified that the importers received only 5029.12 MT instead of 5283.60 MT (Bill of Landing quantity).</p><p>4. Accordingly the proceedings were initiated and a show-cause notice dated 14.3.97 was issued to M/s Oceanic Shipping Agency Pvt. Ltd. and M/s TISCO. These proceedings culminated in the Commissioner of Customs (P), Calcutta, W.B. passing an order dated 6.3.98/20.1.98 in which the Commissioner ordered for absolute confiscation of the impugned 292 pcs.</p><p>of M.S. Billets and imposed a penalty of Rs. 10,00,000/- each on M/s Oceanic Shipping Agency Pvt. Ltd. and M/s TISCO under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962.</p><p>5. Both the above named parties are in appeal against the Order of the Commissioner of Customs. We have heard Shri S.K. Bagaria, ld. Advocate for M/s TISCO and Dr. Samir Chakraborty, and Shri Abhijit Biswas, ld.Advocate for M/s Oceanic Shipping Agency Pvt. Ltd.. We have also heard Shri V.K. Chaturvedi, ld. SDR for the respondent.</p><p>6. We have considered the submissions made by both the sides. The Commissioner in her order has observed that 292 pcs. of billets are in excess of four consignments imported by four Nepalese parties through four different clearing agents; that after the goods were taken delivery by the concerned parties, the excess quantity of 292 numbers billets were left in the docks and the same were seized by the DIU Officers. It is observed that the billets were not manifested as the full quantity was delivered to the concerned importers and even otherwise also no importer claimed the consignment found in excess. The appellants on the contrary are contending that the total 10070 pcs. of billets mentioned in the invoice are of the lengths varying from 4000 mm to 9000 mm and their weight is 5283.600 MT. As against these particulars mentioned in the shipping documents, the imported goods were sold on weight basis and as per the survey report of M/s A.G.S.Ltd. and M/s Lardner North and Company, the delivery was made to the concerned parties only of 5092.120 MT though the number of billets delivered to them is yet shown as 10070 pcs. Thus the quantity short delivered to them was 191.480 MT and this shortage represented 292 pcs.</p><p>still lying in the docks. Thus it is contended that the total number of pieces representing the imported quantity of 5283.600 MT was 10362 and not 10070 as mentioned in the shipping documents. It is further submitted that the appellants M/s Oceanic Shipping Agency Pvt. Ltd. subsequently on 13.1.96 has filed a supplementary IGM with the Assistant Commissioner of Customs, Import Department, Customs House, Calcutta for the aforesaid 292 pcs. for delivery to the four Nepalese consignees which has been permitted by the said authority. It is stated that the four buyers in Nepal had also lodged their claims on the consignors M/s ITD for the short delivery and the same has also been paid. We have considered these submissions. From the copies of the shipping documents and subsequent report of the surveyors, it clearly emerges that though the shipping documents referred to total number of pcs. of M.S. Billets as 10070 but this is obviously an approximate number on account of varying lengths of billets between 4000 mm to 9000 mm. The consignment was primarily shipped by weight which happened to 5283.600 MT. As per the two survey reports, the delivery made to the four consignees was only of 5092.120 MT and balance quantity of 191.480 MT related to the 292 billets lying in the docks after the delivery had been effected to the concerned parties. This is further supported by the fact that the Import Manifest was subsequently got amended by the steamer agents of the vessel through the A.C., Customs, Import Department and four Nepali buyers have also since been compensated by the consignor in respect of the quantity of the goods short delivered to them. In this view of the matter, therefore, there is no ground to hold that the impugned 292 pcs. of M.S. Billets were illegally imported and to order for their confiscation. Consequently, there is also no warrant to impose penalty either on the steamer agents or on the importers. These two appeals are, therefore, allowed, by setting aside the order of the Commissioner of Customs.', 'observations' => '', 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => '(2001)(136)ELT1396Tri(Kol.)kata', 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'Commr. of Customs (P), W.B.,', 'sub' => null, 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'oceanic-shipping-agency-pvt-vs-commr-customs' $args = array( (int) 0 => '23085', (int) 1 => 'oceanic-shipping-agency-pvt-vs-commr-customs' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/23085/oceanic-shipping-agency-pvt-vs-commr-customs' $ctype = '' $content = array( (int) 0 => ' 1. These are two appeals - one by M/s Oceanic Shipping Agency Pvt. Ltd. and another by M/s TISCO against the order dated 20.1.98/6.3.98 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), W.B., Calcutta.', (int) 1 => '<p>2. The brief facts of the case are that the officer of DIU (P) Unit of the Calcutta Customs House seized 292 pcs. of M.S. Billets of the size 100 mm x 100 mm x 4-9 mts. weighing 0.5247 MT per piece on 14.11.96 lying in the Shed. On enquiry, it was learnt that the vessel M.V.Svetlogorsk arrived at Calcutta Port on 14.9.96 and completed the discharge of it, cargo on 20.9.96. After delivery of full manifested quantity of 10070 pcs. of M.S. Billets by this vessel, 292 pcs. were left in the shed which were considered to be un-manifested and suspected to be cleared by the clearing agent/steamer agent and importers by way of manipulating the import documents. Accordingly, the said 292 pcs. of M.S. Billets were detained on 18.10.96.', (int) 2 => '<p>3. On further enquiry, Shri M.K. Mukherjee of M/s Oceanic Shipping Agency Pvt. Ltd.- the steamer agents in his statement dated 27.11.96 deposed that the vessel carried 10070 pcs. of M.S. Billets weighing 5283.600 MT as per relevant Bill of Lading that the subject consignment was imported by M/s TISCO as per the invoice number dated 28.7.96. This consignment was sold by M/s TISCO to four Nepalese consignees and whole of the consignment of 10070 pcs. had been delivered to such consignees.', (int) 3 => '<p>He stated that M/s Lardner North and Company and m/s A.G.S. India Ltd.- the surveyors were employed by them and M/s TISCO respectively for survey of the goods; that the goods were delivered but the weighment was done outside the docks. The survey report dated 17.10.96 of M/s Lardner North and Company certified 10070 pcs. of billets lying in the shed. M/s A.G.S. India also conducted the survey between 15.9.96 and 16.10.96 and certified that the importers received only 5029.12 MT instead of 5283.60 MT (Bill of Landing quantity).', (int) 4 => '<p>4. Accordingly the proceedings were initiated and a show-cause notice dated 14.3.97 was issued to M/s Oceanic Shipping Agency Pvt. Ltd. and M/s TISCO. These proceedings culminated in the Commissioner of Customs (P), Calcutta, W.B. passing an order dated 6.3.98/20.1.98 in which the Commissioner ordered for absolute confiscation of the impugned 292 pcs.', (int) 5 => '<p>of M.S. Billets and imposed a penalty of Rs. 10,00,000/- each on M/s Oceanic Shipping Agency Pvt. Ltd. and M/s TISCO under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962.', (int) 6 => '<p>5. Both the above named parties are in appeal against the Order of the Commissioner of Customs. We have heard Shri S.K. Bagaria, ld. Advocate for M/s TISCO and Dr. Samir Chakraborty, and Shri Abhijit Biswas, ld.Advocate for M/s Oceanic Shipping Agency Pvt. Ltd.. We have also heard Shri V.K. Chaturvedi, ld. SDR for the respondent.', (int) 7 => '<p>6. We have considered the submissions made by both the sides. The Commissioner in her order has observed that 292 pcs. of billets are in excess of four consignments imported by four Nepalese parties through four different clearing agents; that after the goods were taken delivery by the concerned parties, the excess quantity of 292 numbers billets were left in the docks and the same were seized by the DIU Officers. It is observed that the billets were not manifested as the full quantity was delivered to the concerned importers and even otherwise also no importer claimed the consignment found in excess. The appellants on the contrary are contending that the total 10070 pcs. of billets mentioned in the invoice are of the lengths varying from 4000 mm to 9000 mm and their weight is 5283.600 MT. As against these particulars mentioned in the shipping documents, the imported goods were sold on weight basis and as per the survey report of M/s A.G.S.Ltd. and M/s Lardner North and Company, the delivery was made to the concerned parties only of 5092.120 MT though the number of billets delivered to them is yet shown as 10070 pcs. Thus the quantity short delivered to them was 191.480 MT and this shortage represented 292 pcs.', (int) 8 => '<p>still lying in the docks. Thus it is contended that the total number of pieces representing the imported quantity of 5283.600 MT was 10362 and not 10070 as mentioned in the shipping documents. It is further submitted that the appellants M/s Oceanic Shipping Agency Pvt. Ltd. subsequently on 13.1.96 has filed a supplementary IGM with the Assistant Commissioner of Customs, Import Department, Customs House, Calcutta for the aforesaid 292 pcs. for delivery to the four Nepalese consignees which has been permitted by the said authority. It is stated that the four buyers in Nepal had also lodged their claims on the consignors M/s ITD for the short delivery and the same has also been paid. We have considered these submissions. From the copies of the shipping documents and subsequent report of the surveyors, it clearly emerges that though the shipping documents referred to total number of pcs. of M.S. Billets as 10070 but this is obviously an approximate number on account of varying lengths of billets between 4000 mm to 9000 mm. The consignment was primarily shipped by weight which happened to 5283.600 MT. As per the two survey reports, the delivery made to the four consignees was only of 5092.120 MT and balance quantity of 191.480 MT related to the 292 billets lying in the docks after the delivery had been effected to the concerned parties. This is further supported by the fact that the Import Manifest was subsequently got amended by the steamer agents of the vessel through the A.C., Customs, Import Department and four Nepali buyers have also since been compensated by the consignor in respect of the quantity of the goods short delivered to them. In this view of the matter, therefore, there is no ground to hold that the impugned 292 pcs. of M.S. Billets were illegally imported and to order for their confiscation. Consequently, there is also no warrant to impose penalty either on the steamer agents or on the importers. These two appeals are, therefore, allowed, by setting aside the order of the Commissioner of Customs.' ) $paragraphAfter = (int) 1 $cnt = (int) 9 $i = (int) 3include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
He stated that M/s Lardner North and Company and m/s A.G.S. India Ltd.- the surveyors were employed by them and M/s TISCO respectively for survey of the goods; that the goods were delivered but the weighment was done outside the docks. The survey report dated 17.10.96 of M/s Lardner North and Company certified 10070 pcs. of billets lying in the shed. M/s A.G.S. India also conducted the survey between 15.9.96 and 16.10.96 and certified that the importers received only 5029.12 MT instead of 5283.60 MT (Bill of Landing quantity).
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Contextecho $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect');}echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'The Oceanic Shipping Agency Pvt Vs Commr of Customs P W B - Citation 23085 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '23085', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => null, 'appellant' => 'The Oceanic Shipping Agency Pvt.', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'The Oceanic Shipping Agency Pvt. Vs. Commr. of Customs (P), W.B.,', 'casenote' => '', 'caseanalysis' => '', 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Calcutta', 'court_type' => 'TRI', 'decidedon' => '2001-05-16', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => '', 'findings' => '', 'judge' => '', 'judgement' => ' 1. These are two appeals - one by M/s Oceanic Shipping Agency Pvt. Ltd. and another by M/s TISCO against the order dated 20.1.98/6.3.98 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), W.B., Calcutta.</p><p align="justify">2. The brief facts of the case are that the officer of DIU (P) Unit of the Calcutta Customs House seized 292 pcs. of M.S. Billets of the size 100 mm x 100 mm x 4-9 mts. weighing 0.5247 MT per piece on 14.11.96 lying in the Shed. On enquiry, it was learnt that the vessel M.V.Svetlogorsk arrived at Calcutta Port on 14.9.96 and completed the discharge of it, cargo on 20.9.96. After delivery of full manifested quantity of 10070 pcs. of M.S. Billets by this vessel, 292 pcs. were left in the shed which were considered to be un-manifested and suspected to be cleared by the clearing agent/steamer agent and importers by way of manipulating the import documents. Accordingly, the said 292 pcs. of M.S. Billets were detained on 18.10.96.</p><p align="justify">3. On further enquiry, Shri M.K. Mukherjee of M/s Oceanic Shipping Agency Pvt. Ltd.- the steamer agents in his statement dated 27.11.96 deposed that the vessel carried 10070 pcs. of M.S. Billets weighing 5283.600 MT as per relevant Bill of Lading that the subject consignment was imported by M/s TISCO as per the invoice number dated 28.7.96. This consignment was sold by M/s TISCO to four Nepalese consignees and whole of the consignment of 10070 pcs. had been delivered to such consignees.</p><p align="justify">He stated that M/s Lardner North and Company and m/s A.G.S. India Ltd.- the surveyors were employed by them and M/s TISCO respectively for survey of the goods; that the goods were delivered but the weighment was done outside the docks. The survey report dated 17.10.96 of M/s Lardner North and Company certified 10070 pcs. of billets lying in the shed. M/s A.G.S. India also conducted the survey between 15.9.96 and 16.10.96 and certified that the importers received only 5029.12 MT instead of 5283.60 MT (Bill of Landing quantity).</p><p align="justify">4. Accordingly the proceedings were initiated and a show-cause notice dated 14.3.97 was issued to M/s Oceanic Shipping Agency Pvt. Ltd. and M/s TISCO. These proceedings culminated in the Commissioner of Customs (P), Calcutta, W.B. passing an order dated 6.3.98/20.1.98 in which the Commissioner ordered for absolute confiscation of the impugned 292 pcs.</p><p align="justify">of M.S. Billets and imposed a penalty of Rs. 10,00,000/- each on M/s Oceanic Shipping Agency Pvt. Ltd. and M/s TISCO under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962.</p><p align="justify">5. Both the above named parties are in appeal against the Order of the Commissioner of Customs. We have heard Shri S.K. Bagaria, ld. Advocate for M/s TISCO and Dr. Samir Chakraborty, and Shri Abhijit Biswas, ld.Advocate for M/s Oceanic Shipping Agency Pvt. Ltd.. We have also heard Shri V.K. Chaturvedi, ld. SDR for the respondent.</p><p align="justify">6. We have considered the submissions made by both the sides. The Commissioner in her order has observed that 292 pcs. of billets are in excess of four consignments imported by four Nepalese parties through four different clearing agents; that after the goods were taken delivery by the concerned parties, the excess quantity of 292 numbers billets were left in the docks and the same were seized by the DIU Officers. It is observed that the billets were not manifested as the full quantity was delivered to the concerned importers and even otherwise also no importer claimed the consignment found in excess. The appellants on the contrary are contending that the total 10070 pcs. of billets mentioned in the invoice are of the lengths varying from 4000 mm to 9000 mm and their weight is 5283.600 MT. As against these particulars mentioned in the shipping documents, the imported goods were sold on weight basis and as per the survey report of M/s A.G.S.Ltd. and M/s Lardner North and Company, the delivery was made to the concerned parties only of 5092.120 MT though the number of billets delivered to them is yet shown as 10070 pcs. Thus the quantity short delivered to them was 191.480 MT and this shortage represented 292 pcs.</p><p align="justify">still lying in the docks. Thus it is contended that the total number of pieces representing the imported quantity of 5283.600 MT was 10362 and not 10070 as mentioned in the shipping documents. It is further submitted that the appellants M/s Oceanic Shipping Agency Pvt. Ltd. subsequently on 13.1.96 has filed a supplementary IGM with the Assistant Commissioner of Customs, Import Department, Customs House, Calcutta for the aforesaid 292 pcs. for delivery to the four Nepalese consignees which has been permitted by the said authority. It is stated that the four buyers in Nepal had also lodged their claims on the consignors M/s ITD for the short delivery and the same has also been paid. We have considered these submissions. From the copies of the shipping documents and subsequent report of the surveyors, it clearly emerges that though the shipping documents referred to total number of pcs. of M.S. Billets as 10070 but this is obviously an approximate number on account of varying lengths of billets between 4000 mm to 9000 mm. The consignment was primarily shipped by weight which happened to 5283.600 MT. As per the two survey reports, the delivery made to the four consignees was only of 5092.120 MT and balance quantity of 191.480 MT related to the 292 billets lying in the docks after the delivery had been effected to the concerned parties. This is further supported by the fact that the Import Manifest was subsequently got amended by the steamer agents of the vessel through the A.C., Customs, Import Department and four Nepali buyers have also since been compensated by the consignor in respect of the quantity of the goods short delivered to them. In this view of the matter, therefore, there is no ground to hold that the impugned 292 pcs. of M.S. Billets were illegally imported and to order for their confiscation. Consequently, there is also no warrant to impose penalty either on the steamer agents or on the importers. These two appeals are, therefore, allowed, by setting aside the order of the Commissioner of Customs.', 'observations' => '', 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => '(2001)(136)ELT1396Tri(Kol.)kata', 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'Commr. of Customs (P), W.B.,', 'sub' => null, 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'oceanic-shipping-agency-pvt-vs-commr-customs', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '23085', (int) 1 => 'oceanic-shipping-agency-pvt-vs-commr-customs' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'The Oceanic Shipping Agency Pvt Vs Commr of Customs P W B - Citation 23085 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '23085', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => null, 'appellant' => 'The Oceanic Shipping Agency Pvt.', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'The Oceanic Shipping Agency Pvt. Vs. Commr. of Customs (P), W.B.,', 'casenote' => '', 'caseanalysis' => '', 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Calcutta', 'court_type' => 'TRI', 'decidedon' => '2001-05-16', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => '', 'findings' => '', 'judge' => '', 'judgement' => ' 1. These are two appeals - one by M/s Oceanic Shipping Agency Pvt. Ltd. and another by M/s TISCO against the order dated 20.1.98/6.3.98 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), W.B., Calcutta.</p><p>2. The brief facts of the case are that the officer of DIU (P) Unit of the Calcutta Customs House seized 292 pcs. of M.S. Billets of the size 100 mm x 100 mm x 4-9 mts. weighing 0.5247 MT per piece on 14.11.96 lying in the Shed. On enquiry, it was learnt that the vessel M.V.Svetlogorsk arrived at Calcutta Port on 14.9.96 and completed the discharge of it, cargo on 20.9.96. After delivery of full manifested quantity of 10070 pcs. of M.S. Billets by this vessel, 292 pcs. were left in the shed which were considered to be un-manifested and suspected to be cleared by the clearing agent/steamer agent and importers by way of manipulating the import documents. Accordingly, the said 292 pcs. of M.S. Billets were detained on 18.10.96.</p><p>3. On further enquiry, Shri M.K. Mukherjee of M/s Oceanic Shipping Agency Pvt. Ltd.- the steamer agents in his statement dated 27.11.96 deposed that the vessel carried 10070 pcs. of M.S. Billets weighing 5283.600 MT as per relevant Bill of Lading that the subject consignment was imported by M/s TISCO as per the invoice number dated 28.7.96. This consignment was sold by M/s TISCO to four Nepalese consignees and whole of the consignment of 10070 pcs. had been delivered to such consignees.</p><p>He stated that M/s Lardner North and Company and m/s A.G.S. India Ltd.- the surveyors were employed by them and M/s TISCO respectively for survey of the goods; that the goods were delivered but the weighment was done outside the docks. The survey report dated 17.10.96 of M/s Lardner North and Company certified 10070 pcs. of billets lying in the shed. M/s A.G.S. India also conducted the survey between 15.9.96 and 16.10.96 and certified that the importers received only 5029.12 MT instead of 5283.60 MT (Bill of Landing quantity).</p><p>4. Accordingly the proceedings were initiated and a show-cause notice dated 14.3.97 was issued to M/s Oceanic Shipping Agency Pvt. Ltd. and M/s TISCO. These proceedings culminated in the Commissioner of Customs (P), Calcutta, W.B. passing an order dated 6.3.98/20.1.98 in which the Commissioner ordered for absolute confiscation of the impugned 292 pcs.</p><p>of M.S. Billets and imposed a penalty of Rs. 10,00,000/- each on M/s Oceanic Shipping Agency Pvt. Ltd. and M/s TISCO under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962.</p><p>5. Both the above named parties are in appeal against the Order of the Commissioner of Customs. We have heard Shri S.K. Bagaria, ld. Advocate for M/s TISCO and Dr. Samir Chakraborty, and Shri Abhijit Biswas, ld.Advocate for M/s Oceanic Shipping Agency Pvt. Ltd.. We have also heard Shri V.K. Chaturvedi, ld. SDR for the respondent.</p><p>6. We have considered the submissions made by both the sides. The Commissioner in her order has observed that 292 pcs. of billets are in excess of four consignments imported by four Nepalese parties through four different clearing agents; that after the goods were taken delivery by the concerned parties, the excess quantity of 292 numbers billets were left in the docks and the same were seized by the DIU Officers. It is observed that the billets were not manifested as the full quantity was delivered to the concerned importers and even otherwise also no importer claimed the consignment found in excess. The appellants on the contrary are contending that the total 10070 pcs. of billets mentioned in the invoice are of the lengths varying from 4000 mm to 9000 mm and their weight is 5283.600 MT. As against these particulars mentioned in the shipping documents, the imported goods were sold on weight basis and as per the survey report of M/s A.G.S.Ltd. and M/s Lardner North and Company, the delivery was made to the concerned parties only of 5092.120 MT though the number of billets delivered to them is yet shown as 10070 pcs. Thus the quantity short delivered to them was 191.480 MT and this shortage represented 292 pcs.</p><p>still lying in the docks. Thus it is contended that the total number of pieces representing the imported quantity of 5283.600 MT was 10362 and not 10070 as mentioned in the shipping documents. It is further submitted that the appellants M/s Oceanic Shipping Agency Pvt. Ltd. subsequently on 13.1.96 has filed a supplementary IGM with the Assistant Commissioner of Customs, Import Department, Customs House, Calcutta for the aforesaid 292 pcs. for delivery to the four Nepalese consignees which has been permitted by the said authority. It is stated that the four buyers in Nepal had also lodged their claims on the consignors M/s ITD for the short delivery and the same has also been paid. We have considered these submissions. From the copies of the shipping documents and subsequent report of the surveyors, it clearly emerges that though the shipping documents referred to total number of pcs. of M.S. Billets as 10070 but this is obviously an approximate number on account of varying lengths of billets between 4000 mm to 9000 mm. The consignment was primarily shipped by weight which happened to 5283.600 MT. As per the two survey reports, the delivery made to the four consignees was only of 5092.120 MT and balance quantity of 191.480 MT related to the 292 billets lying in the docks after the delivery had been effected to the concerned parties. This is further supported by the fact that the Import Manifest was subsequently got amended by the steamer agents of the vessel through the A.C., Customs, Import Department and four Nepali buyers have also since been compensated by the consignor in respect of the quantity of the goods short delivered to them. In this view of the matter, therefore, there is no ground to hold that the impugned 292 pcs. of M.S. Billets were illegally imported and to order for their confiscation. Consequently, there is also no warrant to impose penalty either on the steamer agents or on the importers. These two appeals are, therefore, allowed, by setting aside the order of the Commissioner of Customs.', 'observations' => '', 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => '(2001)(136)ELT1396Tri(Kol.)kata', 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'Commr. of Customs (P), W.B.,', 'sub' => null, 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'oceanic-shipping-agency-pvt-vs-commr-customs' $args = array( (int) 0 => '23085', (int) 1 => 'oceanic-shipping-agency-pvt-vs-commr-customs' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/23085/oceanic-shipping-agency-pvt-vs-commr-customs' $ctype = '' $content = array( (int) 0 => ' 1. These are two appeals - one by M/s Oceanic Shipping Agency Pvt. Ltd. and another by M/s TISCO against the order dated 20.1.98/6.3.98 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), W.B., Calcutta.', (int) 1 => '<p>2. The brief facts of the case are that the officer of DIU (P) Unit of the Calcutta Customs House seized 292 pcs. of M.S. Billets of the size 100 mm x 100 mm x 4-9 mts. weighing 0.5247 MT per piece on 14.11.96 lying in the Shed. On enquiry, it was learnt that the vessel M.V.Svetlogorsk arrived at Calcutta Port on 14.9.96 and completed the discharge of it, cargo on 20.9.96. After delivery of full manifested quantity of 10070 pcs. of M.S. Billets by this vessel, 292 pcs. were left in the shed which were considered to be un-manifested and suspected to be cleared by the clearing agent/steamer agent and importers by way of manipulating the import documents. Accordingly, the said 292 pcs. of M.S. Billets were detained on 18.10.96.', (int) 2 => '<p>3. On further enquiry, Shri M.K. Mukherjee of M/s Oceanic Shipping Agency Pvt. Ltd.- the steamer agents in his statement dated 27.11.96 deposed that the vessel carried 10070 pcs. of M.S. Billets weighing 5283.600 MT as per relevant Bill of Lading that the subject consignment was imported by M/s TISCO as per the invoice number dated 28.7.96. This consignment was sold by M/s TISCO to four Nepalese consignees and whole of the consignment of 10070 pcs. had been delivered to such consignees.', (int) 3 => '<p>He stated that M/s Lardner North and Company and m/s A.G.S. India Ltd.- the surveyors were employed by them and M/s TISCO respectively for survey of the goods; that the goods were delivered but the weighment was done outside the docks. The survey report dated 17.10.96 of M/s Lardner North and Company certified 10070 pcs. of billets lying in the shed. M/s A.G.S. India also conducted the survey between 15.9.96 and 16.10.96 and certified that the importers received only 5029.12 MT instead of 5283.60 MT (Bill of Landing quantity).', (int) 4 => '<p>4. Accordingly the proceedings were initiated and a show-cause notice dated 14.3.97 was issued to M/s Oceanic Shipping Agency Pvt. Ltd. and M/s TISCO. These proceedings culminated in the Commissioner of Customs (P), Calcutta, W.B. passing an order dated 6.3.98/20.1.98 in which the Commissioner ordered for absolute confiscation of the impugned 292 pcs.', (int) 5 => '<p>of M.S. Billets and imposed a penalty of Rs. 10,00,000/- each on M/s Oceanic Shipping Agency Pvt. Ltd. and M/s TISCO under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962.', (int) 6 => '<p>5. Both the above named parties are in appeal against the Order of the Commissioner of Customs. We have heard Shri S.K. Bagaria, ld. Advocate for M/s TISCO and Dr. Samir Chakraborty, and Shri Abhijit Biswas, ld.Advocate for M/s Oceanic Shipping Agency Pvt. Ltd.. We have also heard Shri V.K. Chaturvedi, ld. SDR for the respondent.', (int) 7 => '<p>6. We have considered the submissions made by both the sides. The Commissioner in her order has observed that 292 pcs. of billets are in excess of four consignments imported by four Nepalese parties through four different clearing agents; that after the goods were taken delivery by the concerned parties, the excess quantity of 292 numbers billets were left in the docks and the same were seized by the DIU Officers. It is observed that the billets were not manifested as the full quantity was delivered to the concerned importers and even otherwise also no importer claimed the consignment found in excess. The appellants on the contrary are contending that the total 10070 pcs. of billets mentioned in the invoice are of the lengths varying from 4000 mm to 9000 mm and their weight is 5283.600 MT. As against these particulars mentioned in the shipping documents, the imported goods were sold on weight basis and as per the survey report of M/s A.G.S.Ltd. and M/s Lardner North and Company, the delivery was made to the concerned parties only of 5092.120 MT though the number of billets delivered to them is yet shown as 10070 pcs. Thus the quantity short delivered to them was 191.480 MT and this shortage represented 292 pcs.', (int) 8 => '<p>still lying in the docks. Thus it is contended that the total number of pieces representing the imported quantity of 5283.600 MT was 10362 and not 10070 as mentioned in the shipping documents. It is further submitted that the appellants M/s Oceanic Shipping Agency Pvt. Ltd. subsequently on 13.1.96 has filed a supplementary IGM with the Assistant Commissioner of Customs, Import Department, Customs House, Calcutta for the aforesaid 292 pcs. for delivery to the four Nepalese consignees which has been permitted by the said authority. It is stated that the four buyers in Nepal had also lodged their claims on the consignors M/s ITD for the short delivery and the same has also been paid. We have considered these submissions. From the copies of the shipping documents and subsequent report of the surveyors, it clearly emerges that though the shipping documents referred to total number of pcs. of M.S. Billets as 10070 but this is obviously an approximate number on account of varying lengths of billets between 4000 mm to 9000 mm. The consignment was primarily shipped by weight which happened to 5283.600 MT. As per the two survey reports, the delivery made to the four consignees was only of 5092.120 MT and balance quantity of 191.480 MT related to the 292 billets lying in the docks after the delivery had been effected to the concerned parties. This is further supported by the fact that the Import Manifest was subsequently got amended by the steamer agents of the vessel through the A.C., Customs, Import Department and four Nepali buyers have also since been compensated by the consignor in respect of the quantity of the goods short delivered to them. In this view of the matter, therefore, there is no ground to hold that the impugned 292 pcs. of M.S. Billets were illegally imported and to order for their confiscation. Consequently, there is also no warrant to impose penalty either on the steamer agents or on the importers. These two appeals are, therefore, allowed, by setting aside the order of the Commissioner of Customs.' ) $paragraphAfter = (int) 1 $cnt = (int) 9 $i = (int) 4include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
4. Accordingly the proceedings were initiated and a show-cause notice dated 14.3.97 was issued to M/s Oceanic Shipping Agency Pvt. Ltd. and M/s TISCO. These proceedings culminated in the Commissioner of Customs (P), Calcutta, W.B. passing an order dated 6.3.98/20.1.98 in which the Commissioner ordered for absolute confiscation of the impugned 292 pcs.
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Contextecho $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect');}echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'The Oceanic Shipping Agency Pvt Vs Commr of Customs P W B - Citation 23085 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '23085', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => null, 'appellant' => 'The Oceanic Shipping Agency Pvt.', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'The Oceanic Shipping Agency Pvt. Vs. Commr. of Customs (P), W.B.,', 'casenote' => '', 'caseanalysis' => '', 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Calcutta', 'court_type' => 'TRI', 'decidedon' => '2001-05-16', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => '', 'findings' => '', 'judge' => '', 'judgement' => ' 1. These are two appeals - one by M/s Oceanic Shipping Agency Pvt. Ltd. and another by M/s TISCO against the order dated 20.1.98/6.3.98 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), W.B., Calcutta.</p><p align="justify">2. The brief facts of the case are that the officer of DIU (P) Unit of the Calcutta Customs House seized 292 pcs. of M.S. Billets of the size 100 mm x 100 mm x 4-9 mts. weighing 0.5247 MT per piece on 14.11.96 lying in the Shed. On enquiry, it was learnt that the vessel M.V.Svetlogorsk arrived at Calcutta Port on 14.9.96 and completed the discharge of it, cargo on 20.9.96. After delivery of full manifested quantity of 10070 pcs. of M.S. Billets by this vessel, 292 pcs. were left in the shed which were considered to be un-manifested and suspected to be cleared by the clearing agent/steamer agent and importers by way of manipulating the import documents. Accordingly, the said 292 pcs. of M.S. Billets were detained on 18.10.96.</p><p align="justify">3. On further enquiry, Shri M.K. Mukherjee of M/s Oceanic Shipping Agency Pvt. Ltd.- the steamer agents in his statement dated 27.11.96 deposed that the vessel carried 10070 pcs. of M.S. Billets weighing 5283.600 MT as per relevant Bill of Lading that the subject consignment was imported by M/s TISCO as per the invoice number dated 28.7.96. This consignment was sold by M/s TISCO to four Nepalese consignees and whole of the consignment of 10070 pcs. had been delivered to such consignees.</p><p align="justify">He stated that M/s Lardner North and Company and m/s A.G.S. India Ltd.- the surveyors were employed by them and M/s TISCO respectively for survey of the goods; that the goods were delivered but the weighment was done outside the docks. The survey report dated 17.10.96 of M/s Lardner North and Company certified 10070 pcs. of billets lying in the shed. M/s A.G.S. India also conducted the survey between 15.9.96 and 16.10.96 and certified that the importers received only 5029.12 MT instead of 5283.60 MT (Bill of Landing quantity).</p><p align="justify">4. Accordingly the proceedings were initiated and a show-cause notice dated 14.3.97 was issued to M/s Oceanic Shipping Agency Pvt. Ltd. and M/s TISCO. These proceedings culminated in the Commissioner of Customs (P), Calcutta, W.B. passing an order dated 6.3.98/20.1.98 in which the Commissioner ordered for absolute confiscation of the impugned 292 pcs.</p><p align="justify">of M.S. Billets and imposed a penalty of Rs. 10,00,000/- each on M/s Oceanic Shipping Agency Pvt. Ltd. and M/s TISCO under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962.</p><p align="justify">5. Both the above named parties are in appeal against the Order of the Commissioner of Customs. We have heard Shri S.K. Bagaria, ld. Advocate for M/s TISCO and Dr. Samir Chakraborty, and Shri Abhijit Biswas, ld.Advocate for M/s Oceanic Shipping Agency Pvt. Ltd.. We have also heard Shri V.K. Chaturvedi, ld. SDR for the respondent.</p><p align="justify">6. We have considered the submissions made by both the sides. The Commissioner in her order has observed that 292 pcs. of billets are in excess of four consignments imported by four Nepalese parties through four different clearing agents; that after the goods were taken delivery by the concerned parties, the excess quantity of 292 numbers billets were left in the docks and the same were seized by the DIU Officers. It is observed that the billets were not manifested as the full quantity was delivered to the concerned importers and even otherwise also no importer claimed the consignment found in excess. The appellants on the contrary are contending that the total 10070 pcs. of billets mentioned in the invoice are of the lengths varying from 4000 mm to 9000 mm and their weight is 5283.600 MT. As against these particulars mentioned in the shipping documents, the imported goods were sold on weight basis and as per the survey report of M/s A.G.S.Ltd. and M/s Lardner North and Company, the delivery was made to the concerned parties only of 5092.120 MT though the number of billets delivered to them is yet shown as 10070 pcs. Thus the quantity short delivered to them was 191.480 MT and this shortage represented 292 pcs.</p><p align="justify">still lying in the docks. Thus it is contended that the total number of pieces representing the imported quantity of 5283.600 MT was 10362 and not 10070 as mentioned in the shipping documents. It is further submitted that the appellants M/s Oceanic Shipping Agency Pvt. Ltd. subsequently on 13.1.96 has filed a supplementary IGM with the Assistant Commissioner of Customs, Import Department, Customs House, Calcutta for the aforesaid 292 pcs. for delivery to the four Nepalese consignees which has been permitted by the said authority. It is stated that the four buyers in Nepal had also lodged their claims on the consignors M/s ITD for the short delivery and the same has also been paid. We have considered these submissions. From the copies of the shipping documents and subsequent report of the surveyors, it clearly emerges that though the shipping documents referred to total number of pcs. of M.S. Billets as 10070 but this is obviously an approximate number on account of varying lengths of billets between 4000 mm to 9000 mm. The consignment was primarily shipped by weight which happened to 5283.600 MT. As per the two survey reports, the delivery made to the four consignees was only of 5092.120 MT and balance quantity of 191.480 MT related to the 292 billets lying in the docks after the delivery had been effected to the concerned parties. This is further supported by the fact that the Import Manifest was subsequently got amended by the steamer agents of the vessel through the A.C., Customs, Import Department and four Nepali buyers have also since been compensated by the consignor in respect of the quantity of the goods short delivered to them. In this view of the matter, therefore, there is no ground to hold that the impugned 292 pcs. of M.S. Billets were illegally imported and to order for their confiscation. Consequently, there is also no warrant to impose penalty either on the steamer agents or on the importers. These two appeals are, therefore, allowed, by setting aside the order of the Commissioner of Customs.', 'observations' => '', 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => '(2001)(136)ELT1396Tri(Kol.)kata', 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'Commr. of Customs (P), W.B.,', 'sub' => null, 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'oceanic-shipping-agency-pvt-vs-commr-customs', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '23085', (int) 1 => 'oceanic-shipping-agency-pvt-vs-commr-customs' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'The Oceanic Shipping Agency Pvt Vs Commr of Customs P W B - Citation 23085 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '23085', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => null, 'appellant' => 'The Oceanic Shipping Agency Pvt.', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'The Oceanic Shipping Agency Pvt. Vs. Commr. of Customs (P), W.B.,', 'casenote' => '', 'caseanalysis' => '', 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Calcutta', 'court_type' => 'TRI', 'decidedon' => '2001-05-16', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => '', 'findings' => '', 'judge' => '', 'judgement' => ' 1. These are two appeals - one by M/s Oceanic Shipping Agency Pvt. Ltd. and another by M/s TISCO against the order dated 20.1.98/6.3.98 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), W.B., Calcutta.</p><p>2. The brief facts of the case are that the officer of DIU (P) Unit of the Calcutta Customs House seized 292 pcs. of M.S. Billets of the size 100 mm x 100 mm x 4-9 mts. weighing 0.5247 MT per piece on 14.11.96 lying in the Shed. On enquiry, it was learnt that the vessel M.V.Svetlogorsk arrived at Calcutta Port on 14.9.96 and completed the discharge of it, cargo on 20.9.96. After delivery of full manifested quantity of 10070 pcs. of M.S. Billets by this vessel, 292 pcs. were left in the shed which were considered to be un-manifested and suspected to be cleared by the clearing agent/steamer agent and importers by way of manipulating the import documents. Accordingly, the said 292 pcs. of M.S. Billets were detained on 18.10.96.</p><p>3. On further enquiry, Shri M.K. Mukherjee of M/s Oceanic Shipping Agency Pvt. Ltd.- the steamer agents in his statement dated 27.11.96 deposed that the vessel carried 10070 pcs. of M.S. Billets weighing 5283.600 MT as per relevant Bill of Lading that the subject consignment was imported by M/s TISCO as per the invoice number dated 28.7.96. This consignment was sold by M/s TISCO to four Nepalese consignees and whole of the consignment of 10070 pcs. had been delivered to such consignees.</p><p>He stated that M/s Lardner North and Company and m/s A.G.S. India Ltd.- the surveyors were employed by them and M/s TISCO respectively for survey of the goods; that the goods were delivered but the weighment was done outside the docks. The survey report dated 17.10.96 of M/s Lardner North and Company certified 10070 pcs. of billets lying in the shed. M/s A.G.S. India also conducted the survey between 15.9.96 and 16.10.96 and certified that the importers received only 5029.12 MT instead of 5283.60 MT (Bill of Landing quantity).</p><p>4. Accordingly the proceedings were initiated and a show-cause notice dated 14.3.97 was issued to M/s Oceanic Shipping Agency Pvt. Ltd. and M/s TISCO. These proceedings culminated in the Commissioner of Customs (P), Calcutta, W.B. passing an order dated 6.3.98/20.1.98 in which the Commissioner ordered for absolute confiscation of the impugned 292 pcs.</p><p>of M.S. Billets and imposed a penalty of Rs. 10,00,000/- each on M/s Oceanic Shipping Agency Pvt. Ltd. and M/s TISCO under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962.</p><p>5. Both the above named parties are in appeal against the Order of the Commissioner of Customs. We have heard Shri S.K. Bagaria, ld. Advocate for M/s TISCO and Dr. Samir Chakraborty, and Shri Abhijit Biswas, ld.Advocate for M/s Oceanic Shipping Agency Pvt. Ltd.. We have also heard Shri V.K. Chaturvedi, ld. SDR for the respondent.</p><p>6. We have considered the submissions made by both the sides. The Commissioner in her order has observed that 292 pcs. of billets are in excess of four consignments imported by four Nepalese parties through four different clearing agents; that after the goods were taken delivery by the concerned parties, the excess quantity of 292 numbers billets were left in the docks and the same were seized by the DIU Officers. It is observed that the billets were not manifested as the full quantity was delivered to the concerned importers and even otherwise also no importer claimed the consignment found in excess. The appellants on the contrary are contending that the total 10070 pcs. of billets mentioned in the invoice are of the lengths varying from 4000 mm to 9000 mm and their weight is 5283.600 MT. As against these particulars mentioned in the shipping documents, the imported goods were sold on weight basis and as per the survey report of M/s A.G.S.Ltd. and M/s Lardner North and Company, the delivery was made to the concerned parties only of 5092.120 MT though the number of billets delivered to them is yet shown as 10070 pcs. Thus the quantity short delivered to them was 191.480 MT and this shortage represented 292 pcs.</p><p>still lying in the docks. Thus it is contended that the total number of pieces representing the imported quantity of 5283.600 MT was 10362 and not 10070 as mentioned in the shipping documents. It is further submitted that the appellants M/s Oceanic Shipping Agency Pvt. Ltd. subsequently on 13.1.96 has filed a supplementary IGM with the Assistant Commissioner of Customs, Import Department, Customs House, Calcutta for the aforesaid 292 pcs. for delivery to the four Nepalese consignees which has been permitted by the said authority. It is stated that the four buyers in Nepal had also lodged their claims on the consignors M/s ITD for the short delivery and the same has also been paid. We have considered these submissions. From the copies of the shipping documents and subsequent report of the surveyors, it clearly emerges that though the shipping documents referred to total number of pcs. of M.S. Billets as 10070 but this is obviously an approximate number on account of varying lengths of billets between 4000 mm to 9000 mm. The consignment was primarily shipped by weight which happened to 5283.600 MT. As per the two survey reports, the delivery made to the four consignees was only of 5092.120 MT and balance quantity of 191.480 MT related to the 292 billets lying in the docks after the delivery had been effected to the concerned parties. This is further supported by the fact that the Import Manifest was subsequently got amended by the steamer agents of the vessel through the A.C., Customs, Import Department and four Nepali buyers have also since been compensated by the consignor in respect of the quantity of the goods short delivered to them. In this view of the matter, therefore, there is no ground to hold that the impugned 292 pcs. of M.S. Billets were illegally imported and to order for their confiscation. Consequently, there is also no warrant to impose penalty either on the steamer agents or on the importers. These two appeals are, therefore, allowed, by setting aside the order of the Commissioner of Customs.', 'observations' => '', 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => '(2001)(136)ELT1396Tri(Kol.)kata', 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'Commr. of Customs (P), W.B.,', 'sub' => null, 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'oceanic-shipping-agency-pvt-vs-commr-customs' $args = array( (int) 0 => '23085', (int) 1 => 'oceanic-shipping-agency-pvt-vs-commr-customs' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/23085/oceanic-shipping-agency-pvt-vs-commr-customs' $ctype = '' $content = array( (int) 0 => ' 1. These are two appeals - one by M/s Oceanic Shipping Agency Pvt. Ltd. and another by M/s TISCO against the order dated 20.1.98/6.3.98 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), W.B., Calcutta.', (int) 1 => '<p>2. The brief facts of the case are that the officer of DIU (P) Unit of the Calcutta Customs House seized 292 pcs. of M.S. Billets of the size 100 mm x 100 mm x 4-9 mts. weighing 0.5247 MT per piece on 14.11.96 lying in the Shed. On enquiry, it was learnt that the vessel M.V.Svetlogorsk arrived at Calcutta Port on 14.9.96 and completed the discharge of it, cargo on 20.9.96. After delivery of full manifested quantity of 10070 pcs. of M.S. Billets by this vessel, 292 pcs. were left in the shed which were considered to be un-manifested and suspected to be cleared by the clearing agent/steamer agent and importers by way of manipulating the import documents. Accordingly, the said 292 pcs. of M.S. Billets were detained on 18.10.96.', (int) 2 => '<p>3. On further enquiry, Shri M.K. Mukherjee of M/s Oceanic Shipping Agency Pvt. Ltd.- the steamer agents in his statement dated 27.11.96 deposed that the vessel carried 10070 pcs. of M.S. Billets weighing 5283.600 MT as per relevant Bill of Lading that the subject consignment was imported by M/s TISCO as per the invoice number dated 28.7.96. This consignment was sold by M/s TISCO to four Nepalese consignees and whole of the consignment of 10070 pcs. had been delivered to such consignees.', (int) 3 => '<p>He stated that M/s Lardner North and Company and m/s A.G.S. India Ltd.- the surveyors were employed by them and M/s TISCO respectively for survey of the goods; that the goods were delivered but the weighment was done outside the docks. The survey report dated 17.10.96 of M/s Lardner North and Company certified 10070 pcs. of billets lying in the shed. M/s A.G.S. India also conducted the survey between 15.9.96 and 16.10.96 and certified that the importers received only 5029.12 MT instead of 5283.60 MT (Bill of Landing quantity).', (int) 4 => '<p>4. Accordingly the proceedings were initiated and a show-cause notice dated 14.3.97 was issued to M/s Oceanic Shipping Agency Pvt. Ltd. and M/s TISCO. These proceedings culminated in the Commissioner of Customs (P), Calcutta, W.B. passing an order dated 6.3.98/20.1.98 in which the Commissioner ordered for absolute confiscation of the impugned 292 pcs.', (int) 5 => '<p>of M.S. Billets and imposed a penalty of Rs. 10,00,000/- each on M/s Oceanic Shipping Agency Pvt. Ltd. and M/s TISCO under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962.', (int) 6 => '<p>5. Both the above named parties are in appeal against the Order of the Commissioner of Customs. We have heard Shri S.K. Bagaria, ld. Advocate for M/s TISCO and Dr. Samir Chakraborty, and Shri Abhijit Biswas, ld.Advocate for M/s Oceanic Shipping Agency Pvt. Ltd.. We have also heard Shri V.K. Chaturvedi, ld. SDR for the respondent.', (int) 7 => '<p>6. We have considered the submissions made by both the sides. The Commissioner in her order has observed that 292 pcs. of billets are in excess of four consignments imported by four Nepalese parties through four different clearing agents; that after the goods were taken delivery by the concerned parties, the excess quantity of 292 numbers billets were left in the docks and the same were seized by the DIU Officers. It is observed that the billets were not manifested as the full quantity was delivered to the concerned importers and even otherwise also no importer claimed the consignment found in excess. The appellants on the contrary are contending that the total 10070 pcs. of billets mentioned in the invoice are of the lengths varying from 4000 mm to 9000 mm and their weight is 5283.600 MT. As against these particulars mentioned in the shipping documents, the imported goods were sold on weight basis and as per the survey report of M/s A.G.S.Ltd. and M/s Lardner North and Company, the delivery was made to the concerned parties only of 5092.120 MT though the number of billets delivered to them is yet shown as 10070 pcs. Thus the quantity short delivered to them was 191.480 MT and this shortage represented 292 pcs.', (int) 8 => '<p>still lying in the docks. Thus it is contended that the total number of pieces representing the imported quantity of 5283.600 MT was 10362 and not 10070 as mentioned in the shipping documents. It is further submitted that the appellants M/s Oceanic Shipping Agency Pvt. Ltd. subsequently on 13.1.96 has filed a supplementary IGM with the Assistant Commissioner of Customs, Import Department, Customs House, Calcutta for the aforesaid 292 pcs. for delivery to the four Nepalese consignees which has been permitted by the said authority. It is stated that the four buyers in Nepal had also lodged their claims on the consignors M/s ITD for the short delivery and the same has also been paid. We have considered these submissions. From the copies of the shipping documents and subsequent report of the surveyors, it clearly emerges that though the shipping documents referred to total number of pcs. of M.S. Billets as 10070 but this is obviously an approximate number on account of varying lengths of billets between 4000 mm to 9000 mm. The consignment was primarily shipped by weight which happened to 5283.600 MT. As per the two survey reports, the delivery made to the four consignees was only of 5092.120 MT and balance quantity of 191.480 MT related to the 292 billets lying in the docks after the delivery had been effected to the concerned parties. This is further supported by the fact that the Import Manifest was subsequently got amended by the steamer agents of the vessel through the A.C., Customs, Import Department and four Nepali buyers have also since been compensated by the consignor in respect of the quantity of the goods short delivered to them. In this view of the matter, therefore, there is no ground to hold that the impugned 292 pcs. of M.S. Billets were illegally imported and to order for their confiscation. Consequently, there is also no warrant to impose penalty either on the steamer agents or on the importers. These two appeals are, therefore, allowed, by setting aside the order of the Commissioner of Customs.' ) $paragraphAfter = (int) 1 $cnt = (int) 9 $i = (int) 5include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
of M.S. Billets and imposed a penalty of Rs. 10,00,000/- each on M/s Oceanic Shipping Agency Pvt. Ltd. and M/s TISCO under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962.
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Contextecho $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect');}echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'The Oceanic Shipping Agency Pvt Vs Commr of Customs P W B - Citation 23085 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '23085', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => null, 'appellant' => 'The Oceanic Shipping Agency Pvt.', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'The Oceanic Shipping Agency Pvt. Vs. Commr. of Customs (P), W.B.,', 'casenote' => '', 'caseanalysis' => '', 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Calcutta', 'court_type' => 'TRI', 'decidedon' => '2001-05-16', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => '', 'findings' => '', 'judge' => '', 'judgement' => ' 1. These are two appeals - one by M/s Oceanic Shipping Agency Pvt. Ltd. and another by M/s TISCO against the order dated 20.1.98/6.3.98 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), W.B., Calcutta.</p><p align="justify">2. The brief facts of the case are that the officer of DIU (P) Unit of the Calcutta Customs House seized 292 pcs. of M.S. Billets of the size 100 mm x 100 mm x 4-9 mts. weighing 0.5247 MT per piece on 14.11.96 lying in the Shed. On enquiry, it was learnt that the vessel M.V.Svetlogorsk arrived at Calcutta Port on 14.9.96 and completed the discharge of it, cargo on 20.9.96. After delivery of full manifested quantity of 10070 pcs. of M.S. Billets by this vessel, 292 pcs. were left in the shed which were considered to be un-manifested and suspected to be cleared by the clearing agent/steamer agent and importers by way of manipulating the import documents. Accordingly, the said 292 pcs. of M.S. Billets were detained on 18.10.96.</p><p align="justify">3. On further enquiry, Shri M.K. Mukherjee of M/s Oceanic Shipping Agency Pvt. Ltd.- the steamer agents in his statement dated 27.11.96 deposed that the vessel carried 10070 pcs. of M.S. Billets weighing 5283.600 MT as per relevant Bill of Lading that the subject consignment was imported by M/s TISCO as per the invoice number dated 28.7.96. This consignment was sold by M/s TISCO to four Nepalese consignees and whole of the consignment of 10070 pcs. had been delivered to such consignees.</p><p align="justify">He stated that M/s Lardner North and Company and m/s A.G.S. India Ltd.- the surveyors were employed by them and M/s TISCO respectively for survey of the goods; that the goods were delivered but the weighment was done outside the docks. The survey report dated 17.10.96 of M/s Lardner North and Company certified 10070 pcs. of billets lying in the shed. M/s A.G.S. India also conducted the survey between 15.9.96 and 16.10.96 and certified that the importers received only 5029.12 MT instead of 5283.60 MT (Bill of Landing quantity).</p><p align="justify">4. Accordingly the proceedings were initiated and a show-cause notice dated 14.3.97 was issued to M/s Oceanic Shipping Agency Pvt. Ltd. and M/s TISCO. These proceedings culminated in the Commissioner of Customs (P), Calcutta, W.B. passing an order dated 6.3.98/20.1.98 in which the Commissioner ordered for absolute confiscation of the impugned 292 pcs.</p><p align="justify">of M.S. Billets and imposed a penalty of Rs. 10,00,000/- each on M/s Oceanic Shipping Agency Pvt. Ltd. and M/s TISCO under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962.</p><p align="justify">5. Both the above named parties are in appeal against the Order of the Commissioner of Customs. We have heard Shri S.K. Bagaria, ld. Advocate for M/s TISCO and Dr. Samir Chakraborty, and Shri Abhijit Biswas, ld.Advocate for M/s Oceanic Shipping Agency Pvt. Ltd.. We have also heard Shri V.K. Chaturvedi, ld. SDR for the respondent.</p><p align="justify">6. We have considered the submissions made by both the sides. The Commissioner in her order has observed that 292 pcs. of billets are in excess of four consignments imported by four Nepalese parties through four different clearing agents; that after the goods were taken delivery by the concerned parties, the excess quantity of 292 numbers billets were left in the docks and the same were seized by the DIU Officers. It is observed that the billets were not manifested as the full quantity was delivered to the concerned importers and even otherwise also no importer claimed the consignment found in excess. The appellants on the contrary are contending that the total 10070 pcs. of billets mentioned in the invoice are of the lengths varying from 4000 mm to 9000 mm and their weight is 5283.600 MT. As against these particulars mentioned in the shipping documents, the imported goods were sold on weight basis and as per the survey report of M/s A.G.S.Ltd. and M/s Lardner North and Company, the delivery was made to the concerned parties only of 5092.120 MT though the number of billets delivered to them is yet shown as 10070 pcs. Thus the quantity short delivered to them was 191.480 MT and this shortage represented 292 pcs.</p><p align="justify">still lying in the docks. Thus it is contended that the total number of pieces representing the imported quantity of 5283.600 MT was 10362 and not 10070 as mentioned in the shipping documents. It is further submitted that the appellants M/s Oceanic Shipping Agency Pvt. Ltd. subsequently on 13.1.96 has filed a supplementary IGM with the Assistant Commissioner of Customs, Import Department, Customs House, Calcutta for the aforesaid 292 pcs. for delivery to the four Nepalese consignees which has been permitted by the said authority. It is stated that the four buyers in Nepal had also lodged their claims on the consignors M/s ITD for the short delivery and the same has also been paid. We have considered these submissions. From the copies of the shipping documents and subsequent report of the surveyors, it clearly emerges that though the shipping documents referred to total number of pcs. of M.S. Billets as 10070 but this is obviously an approximate number on account of varying lengths of billets between 4000 mm to 9000 mm. The consignment was primarily shipped by weight which happened to 5283.600 MT. As per the two survey reports, the delivery made to the four consignees was only of 5092.120 MT and balance quantity of 191.480 MT related to the 292 billets lying in the docks after the delivery had been effected to the concerned parties. This is further supported by the fact that the Import Manifest was subsequently got amended by the steamer agents of the vessel through the A.C., Customs, Import Department and four Nepali buyers have also since been compensated by the consignor in respect of the quantity of the goods short delivered to them. In this view of the matter, therefore, there is no ground to hold that the impugned 292 pcs. of M.S. Billets were illegally imported and to order for their confiscation. Consequently, there is also no warrant to impose penalty either on the steamer agents or on the importers. These two appeals are, therefore, allowed, by setting aside the order of the Commissioner of Customs.', 'observations' => '', 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => '(2001)(136)ELT1396Tri(Kol.)kata', 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'Commr. of Customs (P), W.B.,', 'sub' => null, 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'oceanic-shipping-agency-pvt-vs-commr-customs', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '23085', (int) 1 => 'oceanic-shipping-agency-pvt-vs-commr-customs' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'The Oceanic Shipping Agency Pvt Vs Commr of Customs P W B - Citation 23085 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '23085', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => null, 'appellant' => 'The Oceanic Shipping Agency Pvt.', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'The Oceanic Shipping Agency Pvt. Vs. Commr. of Customs (P), W.B.,', 'casenote' => '', 'caseanalysis' => '', 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Calcutta', 'court_type' => 'TRI', 'decidedon' => '2001-05-16', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => '', 'findings' => '', 'judge' => '', 'judgement' => ' 1. These are two appeals - one by M/s Oceanic Shipping Agency Pvt. Ltd. and another by M/s TISCO against the order dated 20.1.98/6.3.98 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), W.B., Calcutta.</p><p>2. The brief facts of the case are that the officer of DIU (P) Unit of the Calcutta Customs House seized 292 pcs. of M.S. Billets of the size 100 mm x 100 mm x 4-9 mts. weighing 0.5247 MT per piece on 14.11.96 lying in the Shed. On enquiry, it was learnt that the vessel M.V.Svetlogorsk arrived at Calcutta Port on 14.9.96 and completed the discharge of it, cargo on 20.9.96. After delivery of full manifested quantity of 10070 pcs. of M.S. Billets by this vessel, 292 pcs. were left in the shed which were considered to be un-manifested and suspected to be cleared by the clearing agent/steamer agent and importers by way of manipulating the import documents. Accordingly, the said 292 pcs. of M.S. Billets were detained on 18.10.96.</p><p>3. On further enquiry, Shri M.K. Mukherjee of M/s Oceanic Shipping Agency Pvt. Ltd.- the steamer agents in his statement dated 27.11.96 deposed that the vessel carried 10070 pcs. of M.S. Billets weighing 5283.600 MT as per relevant Bill of Lading that the subject consignment was imported by M/s TISCO as per the invoice number dated 28.7.96. This consignment was sold by M/s TISCO to four Nepalese consignees and whole of the consignment of 10070 pcs. had been delivered to such consignees.</p><p>He stated that M/s Lardner North and Company and m/s A.G.S. India Ltd.- the surveyors were employed by them and M/s TISCO respectively for survey of the goods; that the goods were delivered but the weighment was done outside the docks. The survey report dated 17.10.96 of M/s Lardner North and Company certified 10070 pcs. of billets lying in the shed. M/s A.G.S. India also conducted the survey between 15.9.96 and 16.10.96 and certified that the importers received only 5029.12 MT instead of 5283.60 MT (Bill of Landing quantity).</p><p>4. Accordingly the proceedings were initiated and a show-cause notice dated 14.3.97 was issued to M/s Oceanic Shipping Agency Pvt. Ltd. and M/s TISCO. These proceedings culminated in the Commissioner of Customs (P), Calcutta, W.B. passing an order dated 6.3.98/20.1.98 in which the Commissioner ordered for absolute confiscation of the impugned 292 pcs.</p><p>of M.S. Billets and imposed a penalty of Rs. 10,00,000/- each on M/s Oceanic Shipping Agency Pvt. Ltd. and M/s TISCO under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962.</p><p>5. Both the above named parties are in appeal against the Order of the Commissioner of Customs. We have heard Shri S.K. Bagaria, ld. Advocate for M/s TISCO and Dr. Samir Chakraborty, and Shri Abhijit Biswas, ld.Advocate for M/s Oceanic Shipping Agency Pvt. Ltd.. We have also heard Shri V.K. Chaturvedi, ld. SDR for the respondent.</p><p>6. We have considered the submissions made by both the sides. The Commissioner in her order has observed that 292 pcs. of billets are in excess of four consignments imported by four Nepalese parties through four different clearing agents; that after the goods were taken delivery by the concerned parties, the excess quantity of 292 numbers billets were left in the docks and the same were seized by the DIU Officers. It is observed that the billets were not manifested as the full quantity was delivered to the concerned importers and even otherwise also no importer claimed the consignment found in excess. The appellants on the contrary are contending that the total 10070 pcs. of billets mentioned in the invoice are of the lengths varying from 4000 mm to 9000 mm and their weight is 5283.600 MT. As against these particulars mentioned in the shipping documents, the imported goods were sold on weight basis and as per the survey report of M/s A.G.S.Ltd. and M/s Lardner North and Company, the delivery was made to the concerned parties only of 5092.120 MT though the number of billets delivered to them is yet shown as 10070 pcs. Thus the quantity short delivered to them was 191.480 MT and this shortage represented 292 pcs.</p><p>still lying in the docks. Thus it is contended that the total number of pieces representing the imported quantity of 5283.600 MT was 10362 and not 10070 as mentioned in the shipping documents. It is further submitted that the appellants M/s Oceanic Shipping Agency Pvt. Ltd. subsequently on 13.1.96 has filed a supplementary IGM with the Assistant Commissioner of Customs, Import Department, Customs House, Calcutta for the aforesaid 292 pcs. for delivery to the four Nepalese consignees which has been permitted by the said authority. It is stated that the four buyers in Nepal had also lodged their claims on the consignors M/s ITD for the short delivery and the same has also been paid. We have considered these submissions. From the copies of the shipping documents and subsequent report of the surveyors, it clearly emerges that though the shipping documents referred to total number of pcs. of M.S. Billets as 10070 but this is obviously an approximate number on account of varying lengths of billets between 4000 mm to 9000 mm. The consignment was primarily shipped by weight which happened to 5283.600 MT. As per the two survey reports, the delivery made to the four consignees was only of 5092.120 MT and balance quantity of 191.480 MT related to the 292 billets lying in the docks after the delivery had been effected to the concerned parties. This is further supported by the fact that the Import Manifest was subsequently got amended by the steamer agents of the vessel through the A.C., Customs, Import Department and four Nepali buyers have also since been compensated by the consignor in respect of the quantity of the goods short delivered to them. In this view of the matter, therefore, there is no ground to hold that the impugned 292 pcs. of M.S. Billets were illegally imported and to order for their confiscation. Consequently, there is also no warrant to impose penalty either on the steamer agents or on the importers. These two appeals are, therefore, allowed, by setting aside the order of the Commissioner of Customs.', 'observations' => '', 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => '(2001)(136)ELT1396Tri(Kol.)kata', 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'Commr. of Customs (P), W.B.,', 'sub' => null, 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'oceanic-shipping-agency-pvt-vs-commr-customs' $args = array( (int) 0 => '23085', (int) 1 => 'oceanic-shipping-agency-pvt-vs-commr-customs' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/23085/oceanic-shipping-agency-pvt-vs-commr-customs' $ctype = '' $content = array( (int) 0 => ' 1. These are two appeals - one by M/s Oceanic Shipping Agency Pvt. Ltd. and another by M/s TISCO against the order dated 20.1.98/6.3.98 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), W.B., Calcutta.', (int) 1 => '<p>2. The brief facts of the case are that the officer of DIU (P) Unit of the Calcutta Customs House seized 292 pcs. of M.S. Billets of the size 100 mm x 100 mm x 4-9 mts. weighing 0.5247 MT per piece on 14.11.96 lying in the Shed. On enquiry, it was learnt that the vessel M.V.Svetlogorsk arrived at Calcutta Port on 14.9.96 and completed the discharge of it, cargo on 20.9.96. After delivery of full manifested quantity of 10070 pcs. of M.S. Billets by this vessel, 292 pcs. were left in the shed which were considered to be un-manifested and suspected to be cleared by the clearing agent/steamer agent and importers by way of manipulating the import documents. Accordingly, the said 292 pcs. of M.S. Billets were detained on 18.10.96.', (int) 2 => '<p>3. On further enquiry, Shri M.K. Mukherjee of M/s Oceanic Shipping Agency Pvt. Ltd.- the steamer agents in his statement dated 27.11.96 deposed that the vessel carried 10070 pcs. of M.S. Billets weighing 5283.600 MT as per relevant Bill of Lading that the subject consignment was imported by M/s TISCO as per the invoice number dated 28.7.96. This consignment was sold by M/s TISCO to four Nepalese consignees and whole of the consignment of 10070 pcs. had been delivered to such consignees.', (int) 3 => '<p>He stated that M/s Lardner North and Company and m/s A.G.S. India Ltd.- the surveyors were employed by them and M/s TISCO respectively for survey of the goods; that the goods were delivered but the weighment was done outside the docks. The survey report dated 17.10.96 of M/s Lardner North and Company certified 10070 pcs. of billets lying in the shed. M/s A.G.S. India also conducted the survey between 15.9.96 and 16.10.96 and certified that the importers received only 5029.12 MT instead of 5283.60 MT (Bill of Landing quantity).', (int) 4 => '<p>4. Accordingly the proceedings were initiated and a show-cause notice dated 14.3.97 was issued to M/s Oceanic Shipping Agency Pvt. Ltd. and M/s TISCO. These proceedings culminated in the Commissioner of Customs (P), Calcutta, W.B. passing an order dated 6.3.98/20.1.98 in which the Commissioner ordered for absolute confiscation of the impugned 292 pcs.', (int) 5 => '<p>of M.S. Billets and imposed a penalty of Rs. 10,00,000/- each on M/s Oceanic Shipping Agency Pvt. Ltd. and M/s TISCO under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962.', (int) 6 => '<p>5. Both the above named parties are in appeal against the Order of the Commissioner of Customs. We have heard Shri S.K. Bagaria, ld. Advocate for M/s TISCO and Dr. Samir Chakraborty, and Shri Abhijit Biswas, ld.Advocate for M/s Oceanic Shipping Agency Pvt. Ltd.. We have also heard Shri V.K. Chaturvedi, ld. SDR for the respondent.', (int) 7 => '<p>6. We have considered the submissions made by both the sides. The Commissioner in her order has observed that 292 pcs. of billets are in excess of four consignments imported by four Nepalese parties through four different clearing agents; that after the goods were taken delivery by the concerned parties, the excess quantity of 292 numbers billets were left in the docks and the same were seized by the DIU Officers. It is observed that the billets were not manifested as the full quantity was delivered to the concerned importers and even otherwise also no importer claimed the consignment found in excess. The appellants on the contrary are contending that the total 10070 pcs. of billets mentioned in the invoice are of the lengths varying from 4000 mm to 9000 mm and their weight is 5283.600 MT. As against these particulars mentioned in the shipping documents, the imported goods were sold on weight basis and as per the survey report of M/s A.G.S.Ltd. and M/s Lardner North and Company, the delivery was made to the concerned parties only of 5092.120 MT though the number of billets delivered to them is yet shown as 10070 pcs. Thus the quantity short delivered to them was 191.480 MT and this shortage represented 292 pcs.', (int) 8 => '<p>still lying in the docks. Thus it is contended that the total number of pieces representing the imported quantity of 5283.600 MT was 10362 and not 10070 as mentioned in the shipping documents. It is further submitted that the appellants M/s Oceanic Shipping Agency Pvt. Ltd. subsequently on 13.1.96 has filed a supplementary IGM with the Assistant Commissioner of Customs, Import Department, Customs House, Calcutta for the aforesaid 292 pcs. for delivery to the four Nepalese consignees which has been permitted by the said authority. It is stated that the four buyers in Nepal had also lodged their claims on the consignors M/s ITD for the short delivery and the same has also been paid. We have considered these submissions. From the copies of the shipping documents and subsequent report of the surveyors, it clearly emerges that though the shipping documents referred to total number of pcs. of M.S. Billets as 10070 but this is obviously an approximate number on account of varying lengths of billets between 4000 mm to 9000 mm. The consignment was primarily shipped by weight which happened to 5283.600 MT. As per the two survey reports, the delivery made to the four consignees was only of 5092.120 MT and balance quantity of 191.480 MT related to the 292 billets lying in the docks after the delivery had been effected to the concerned parties. This is further supported by the fact that the Import Manifest was subsequently got amended by the steamer agents of the vessel through the A.C., Customs, Import Department and four Nepali buyers have also since been compensated by the consignor in respect of the quantity of the goods short delivered to them. In this view of the matter, therefore, there is no ground to hold that the impugned 292 pcs. of M.S. Billets were illegally imported and to order for their confiscation. Consequently, there is also no warrant to impose penalty either on the steamer agents or on the importers. These two appeals are, therefore, allowed, by setting aside the order of the Commissioner of Customs.' ) $paragraphAfter = (int) 1 $cnt = (int) 9 $i = (int) 6include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
5. Both the above named parties are in appeal against the Order of the Commissioner of Customs. We have heard Shri S.K. Bagaria, ld. Advocate for M/s TISCO and Dr. Samir Chakraborty, and Shri Abhijit Biswas, ld.Advocate for M/s Oceanic Shipping Agency Pvt. Ltd.. We have also heard Shri V.K. Chaturvedi, ld. SDR for the respondent.
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Contextecho $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect');}echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'The Oceanic Shipping Agency Pvt Vs Commr of Customs P W B - Citation 23085 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '23085', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => null, 'appellant' => 'The Oceanic Shipping Agency Pvt.', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'The Oceanic Shipping Agency Pvt. Vs. Commr. of Customs (P), W.B.,', 'casenote' => '', 'caseanalysis' => '', 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Calcutta', 'court_type' => 'TRI', 'decidedon' => '2001-05-16', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => '', 'findings' => '', 'judge' => '', 'judgement' => ' 1. These are two appeals - one by M/s Oceanic Shipping Agency Pvt. Ltd. and another by M/s TISCO against the order dated 20.1.98/6.3.98 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), W.B., Calcutta.</p><p align="justify">2. The brief facts of the case are that the officer of DIU (P) Unit of the Calcutta Customs House seized 292 pcs. of M.S. Billets of the size 100 mm x 100 mm x 4-9 mts. weighing 0.5247 MT per piece on 14.11.96 lying in the Shed. On enquiry, it was learnt that the vessel M.V.Svetlogorsk arrived at Calcutta Port on 14.9.96 and completed the discharge of it, cargo on 20.9.96. After delivery of full manifested quantity of 10070 pcs. of M.S. Billets by this vessel, 292 pcs. were left in the shed which were considered to be un-manifested and suspected to be cleared by the clearing agent/steamer agent and importers by way of manipulating the import documents. Accordingly, the said 292 pcs. of M.S. Billets were detained on 18.10.96.</p><p align="justify">3. On further enquiry, Shri M.K. Mukherjee of M/s Oceanic Shipping Agency Pvt. Ltd.- the steamer agents in his statement dated 27.11.96 deposed that the vessel carried 10070 pcs. of M.S. Billets weighing 5283.600 MT as per relevant Bill of Lading that the subject consignment was imported by M/s TISCO as per the invoice number dated 28.7.96. This consignment was sold by M/s TISCO to four Nepalese consignees and whole of the consignment of 10070 pcs. had been delivered to such consignees.</p><p align="justify">He stated that M/s Lardner North and Company and m/s A.G.S. India Ltd.- the surveyors were employed by them and M/s TISCO respectively for survey of the goods; that the goods were delivered but the weighment was done outside the docks. The survey report dated 17.10.96 of M/s Lardner North and Company certified 10070 pcs. of billets lying in the shed. M/s A.G.S. India also conducted the survey between 15.9.96 and 16.10.96 and certified that the importers received only 5029.12 MT instead of 5283.60 MT (Bill of Landing quantity).</p><p align="justify">4. Accordingly the proceedings were initiated and a show-cause notice dated 14.3.97 was issued to M/s Oceanic Shipping Agency Pvt. Ltd. and M/s TISCO. These proceedings culminated in the Commissioner of Customs (P), Calcutta, W.B. passing an order dated 6.3.98/20.1.98 in which the Commissioner ordered for absolute confiscation of the impugned 292 pcs.</p><p align="justify">of M.S. Billets and imposed a penalty of Rs. 10,00,000/- each on M/s Oceanic Shipping Agency Pvt. Ltd. and M/s TISCO under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962.</p><p align="justify">5. Both the above named parties are in appeal against the Order of the Commissioner of Customs. We have heard Shri S.K. Bagaria, ld. Advocate for M/s TISCO and Dr. Samir Chakraborty, and Shri Abhijit Biswas, ld.Advocate for M/s Oceanic Shipping Agency Pvt. Ltd.. We have also heard Shri V.K. Chaturvedi, ld. SDR for the respondent.</p><p align="justify">6. We have considered the submissions made by both the sides. The Commissioner in her order has observed that 292 pcs. of billets are in excess of four consignments imported by four Nepalese parties through four different clearing agents; that after the goods were taken delivery by the concerned parties, the excess quantity of 292 numbers billets were left in the docks and the same were seized by the DIU Officers. It is observed that the billets were not manifested as the full quantity was delivered to the concerned importers and even otherwise also no importer claimed the consignment found in excess. The appellants on the contrary are contending that the total 10070 pcs. of billets mentioned in the invoice are of the lengths varying from 4000 mm to 9000 mm and their weight is 5283.600 MT. As against these particulars mentioned in the shipping documents, the imported goods were sold on weight basis and as per the survey report of M/s A.G.S.Ltd. and M/s Lardner North and Company, the delivery was made to the concerned parties only of 5092.120 MT though the number of billets delivered to them is yet shown as 10070 pcs. Thus the quantity short delivered to them was 191.480 MT and this shortage represented 292 pcs.</p><p align="justify">still lying in the docks. Thus it is contended that the total number of pieces representing the imported quantity of 5283.600 MT was 10362 and not 10070 as mentioned in the shipping documents. It is further submitted that the appellants M/s Oceanic Shipping Agency Pvt. Ltd. subsequently on 13.1.96 has filed a supplementary IGM with the Assistant Commissioner of Customs, Import Department, Customs House, Calcutta for the aforesaid 292 pcs. for delivery to the four Nepalese consignees which has been permitted by the said authority. It is stated that the four buyers in Nepal had also lodged their claims on the consignors M/s ITD for the short delivery and the same has also been paid. We have considered these submissions. From the copies of the shipping documents and subsequent report of the surveyors, it clearly emerges that though the shipping documents referred to total number of pcs. of M.S. Billets as 10070 but this is obviously an approximate number on account of varying lengths of billets between 4000 mm to 9000 mm. The consignment was primarily shipped by weight which happened to 5283.600 MT. As per the two survey reports, the delivery made to the four consignees was only of 5092.120 MT and balance quantity of 191.480 MT related to the 292 billets lying in the docks after the delivery had been effected to the concerned parties. This is further supported by the fact that the Import Manifest was subsequently got amended by the steamer agents of the vessel through the A.C., Customs, Import Department and four Nepali buyers have also since been compensated by the consignor in respect of the quantity of the goods short delivered to them. In this view of the matter, therefore, there is no ground to hold that the impugned 292 pcs. of M.S. Billets were illegally imported and to order for their confiscation. Consequently, there is also no warrant to impose penalty either on the steamer agents or on the importers. These two appeals are, therefore, allowed, by setting aside the order of the Commissioner of Customs.', 'observations' => '', 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => '(2001)(136)ELT1396Tri(Kol.)kata', 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'Commr. of Customs (P), W.B.,', 'sub' => null, 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'oceanic-shipping-agency-pvt-vs-commr-customs', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '23085', (int) 1 => 'oceanic-shipping-agency-pvt-vs-commr-customs' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'The Oceanic Shipping Agency Pvt Vs Commr of Customs P W B - Citation 23085 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '23085', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => null, 'appellant' => 'The Oceanic Shipping Agency Pvt.', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'The Oceanic Shipping Agency Pvt. Vs. Commr. of Customs (P), W.B.,', 'casenote' => '', 'caseanalysis' => '', 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Calcutta', 'court_type' => 'TRI', 'decidedon' => '2001-05-16', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => '', 'findings' => '', 'judge' => '', 'judgement' => ' 1. These are two appeals - one by M/s Oceanic Shipping Agency Pvt. Ltd. and another by M/s TISCO against the order dated 20.1.98/6.3.98 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), W.B., Calcutta.</p><p>2. The brief facts of the case are that the officer of DIU (P) Unit of the Calcutta Customs House seized 292 pcs. of M.S. Billets of the size 100 mm x 100 mm x 4-9 mts. weighing 0.5247 MT per piece on 14.11.96 lying in the Shed. On enquiry, it was learnt that the vessel M.V.Svetlogorsk arrived at Calcutta Port on 14.9.96 and completed the discharge of it, cargo on 20.9.96. After delivery of full manifested quantity of 10070 pcs. of M.S. Billets by this vessel, 292 pcs. were left in the shed which were considered to be un-manifested and suspected to be cleared by the clearing agent/steamer agent and importers by way of manipulating the import documents. Accordingly, the said 292 pcs. of M.S. Billets were detained on 18.10.96.</p><p>3. On further enquiry, Shri M.K. Mukherjee of M/s Oceanic Shipping Agency Pvt. Ltd.- the steamer agents in his statement dated 27.11.96 deposed that the vessel carried 10070 pcs. of M.S. Billets weighing 5283.600 MT as per relevant Bill of Lading that the subject consignment was imported by M/s TISCO as per the invoice number dated 28.7.96. This consignment was sold by M/s TISCO to four Nepalese consignees and whole of the consignment of 10070 pcs. had been delivered to such consignees.</p><p>He stated that M/s Lardner North and Company and m/s A.G.S. India Ltd.- the surveyors were employed by them and M/s TISCO respectively for survey of the goods; that the goods were delivered but the weighment was done outside the docks. The survey report dated 17.10.96 of M/s Lardner North and Company certified 10070 pcs. of billets lying in the shed. M/s A.G.S. India also conducted the survey between 15.9.96 and 16.10.96 and certified that the importers received only 5029.12 MT instead of 5283.60 MT (Bill of Landing quantity).</p><p>4. Accordingly the proceedings were initiated and a show-cause notice dated 14.3.97 was issued to M/s Oceanic Shipping Agency Pvt. Ltd. and M/s TISCO. These proceedings culminated in the Commissioner of Customs (P), Calcutta, W.B. passing an order dated 6.3.98/20.1.98 in which the Commissioner ordered for absolute confiscation of the impugned 292 pcs.</p><p>of M.S. Billets and imposed a penalty of Rs. 10,00,000/- each on M/s Oceanic Shipping Agency Pvt. Ltd. and M/s TISCO under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962.</p><p>5. Both the above named parties are in appeal against the Order of the Commissioner of Customs. We have heard Shri S.K. Bagaria, ld. Advocate for M/s TISCO and Dr. Samir Chakraborty, and Shri Abhijit Biswas, ld.Advocate for M/s Oceanic Shipping Agency Pvt. Ltd.. We have also heard Shri V.K. Chaturvedi, ld. SDR for the respondent.</p><p>6. We have considered the submissions made by both the sides. The Commissioner in her order has observed that 292 pcs. of billets are in excess of four consignments imported by four Nepalese parties through four different clearing agents; that after the goods were taken delivery by the concerned parties, the excess quantity of 292 numbers billets were left in the docks and the same were seized by the DIU Officers. It is observed that the billets were not manifested as the full quantity was delivered to the concerned importers and even otherwise also no importer claimed the consignment found in excess. The appellants on the contrary are contending that the total 10070 pcs. of billets mentioned in the invoice are of the lengths varying from 4000 mm to 9000 mm and their weight is 5283.600 MT. As against these particulars mentioned in the shipping documents, the imported goods were sold on weight basis and as per the survey report of M/s A.G.S.Ltd. and M/s Lardner North and Company, the delivery was made to the concerned parties only of 5092.120 MT though the number of billets delivered to them is yet shown as 10070 pcs. Thus the quantity short delivered to them was 191.480 MT and this shortage represented 292 pcs.</p><p>still lying in the docks. Thus it is contended that the total number of pieces representing the imported quantity of 5283.600 MT was 10362 and not 10070 as mentioned in the shipping documents. It is further submitted that the appellants M/s Oceanic Shipping Agency Pvt. Ltd. subsequently on 13.1.96 has filed a supplementary IGM with the Assistant Commissioner of Customs, Import Department, Customs House, Calcutta for the aforesaid 292 pcs. for delivery to the four Nepalese consignees which has been permitted by the said authority. It is stated that the four buyers in Nepal had also lodged their claims on the consignors M/s ITD for the short delivery and the same has also been paid. We have considered these submissions. From the copies of the shipping documents and subsequent report of the surveyors, it clearly emerges that though the shipping documents referred to total number of pcs. of M.S. Billets as 10070 but this is obviously an approximate number on account of varying lengths of billets between 4000 mm to 9000 mm. The consignment was primarily shipped by weight which happened to 5283.600 MT. As per the two survey reports, the delivery made to the four consignees was only of 5092.120 MT and balance quantity of 191.480 MT related to the 292 billets lying in the docks after the delivery had been effected to the concerned parties. This is further supported by the fact that the Import Manifest was subsequently got amended by the steamer agents of the vessel through the A.C., Customs, Import Department and four Nepali buyers have also since been compensated by the consignor in respect of the quantity of the goods short delivered to them. In this view of the matter, therefore, there is no ground to hold that the impugned 292 pcs. of M.S. Billets were illegally imported and to order for their confiscation. Consequently, there is also no warrant to impose penalty either on the steamer agents or on the importers. These two appeals are, therefore, allowed, by setting aside the order of the Commissioner of Customs.', 'observations' => '', 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => '(2001)(136)ELT1396Tri(Kol.)kata', 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'Commr. of Customs (P), W.B.,', 'sub' => null, 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'oceanic-shipping-agency-pvt-vs-commr-customs' $args = array( (int) 0 => '23085', (int) 1 => 'oceanic-shipping-agency-pvt-vs-commr-customs' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/23085/oceanic-shipping-agency-pvt-vs-commr-customs' $ctype = '' $content = array( (int) 0 => ' 1. These are two appeals - one by M/s Oceanic Shipping Agency Pvt. Ltd. and another by M/s TISCO against the order dated 20.1.98/6.3.98 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), W.B., Calcutta.', (int) 1 => '<p>2. The brief facts of the case are that the officer of DIU (P) Unit of the Calcutta Customs House seized 292 pcs. of M.S. Billets of the size 100 mm x 100 mm x 4-9 mts. weighing 0.5247 MT per piece on 14.11.96 lying in the Shed. On enquiry, it was learnt that the vessel M.V.Svetlogorsk arrived at Calcutta Port on 14.9.96 and completed the discharge of it, cargo on 20.9.96. After delivery of full manifested quantity of 10070 pcs. of M.S. Billets by this vessel, 292 pcs. were left in the shed which were considered to be un-manifested and suspected to be cleared by the clearing agent/steamer agent and importers by way of manipulating the import documents. Accordingly, the said 292 pcs. of M.S. Billets were detained on 18.10.96.', (int) 2 => '<p>3. On further enquiry, Shri M.K. Mukherjee of M/s Oceanic Shipping Agency Pvt. Ltd.- the steamer agents in his statement dated 27.11.96 deposed that the vessel carried 10070 pcs. of M.S. Billets weighing 5283.600 MT as per relevant Bill of Lading that the subject consignment was imported by M/s TISCO as per the invoice number dated 28.7.96. This consignment was sold by M/s TISCO to four Nepalese consignees and whole of the consignment of 10070 pcs. had been delivered to such consignees.', (int) 3 => '<p>He stated that M/s Lardner North and Company and m/s A.G.S. India Ltd.- the surveyors were employed by them and M/s TISCO respectively for survey of the goods; that the goods were delivered but the weighment was done outside the docks. The survey report dated 17.10.96 of M/s Lardner North and Company certified 10070 pcs. of billets lying in the shed. M/s A.G.S. India also conducted the survey between 15.9.96 and 16.10.96 and certified that the importers received only 5029.12 MT instead of 5283.60 MT (Bill of Landing quantity).', (int) 4 => '<p>4. Accordingly the proceedings were initiated and a show-cause notice dated 14.3.97 was issued to M/s Oceanic Shipping Agency Pvt. Ltd. and M/s TISCO. These proceedings culminated in the Commissioner of Customs (P), Calcutta, W.B. passing an order dated 6.3.98/20.1.98 in which the Commissioner ordered for absolute confiscation of the impugned 292 pcs.', (int) 5 => '<p>of M.S. Billets and imposed a penalty of Rs. 10,00,000/- each on M/s Oceanic Shipping Agency Pvt. Ltd. and M/s TISCO under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962.', (int) 6 => '<p>5. Both the above named parties are in appeal against the Order of the Commissioner of Customs. We have heard Shri S.K. Bagaria, ld. Advocate for M/s TISCO and Dr. Samir Chakraborty, and Shri Abhijit Biswas, ld.Advocate for M/s Oceanic Shipping Agency Pvt. Ltd.. We have also heard Shri V.K. Chaturvedi, ld. SDR for the respondent.', (int) 7 => '<p>6. We have considered the submissions made by both the sides. The Commissioner in her order has observed that 292 pcs. of billets are in excess of four consignments imported by four Nepalese parties through four different clearing agents; that after the goods were taken delivery by the concerned parties, the excess quantity of 292 numbers billets were left in the docks and the same were seized by the DIU Officers. It is observed that the billets were not manifested as the full quantity was delivered to the concerned importers and even otherwise also no importer claimed the consignment found in excess. The appellants on the contrary are contending that the total 10070 pcs. of billets mentioned in the invoice are of the lengths varying from 4000 mm to 9000 mm and their weight is 5283.600 MT. As against these particulars mentioned in the shipping documents, the imported goods were sold on weight basis and as per the survey report of M/s A.G.S.Ltd. and M/s Lardner North and Company, the delivery was made to the concerned parties only of 5092.120 MT though the number of billets delivered to them is yet shown as 10070 pcs. Thus the quantity short delivered to them was 191.480 MT and this shortage represented 292 pcs.', (int) 8 => '<p>still lying in the docks. Thus it is contended that the total number of pieces representing the imported quantity of 5283.600 MT was 10362 and not 10070 as mentioned in the shipping documents. It is further submitted that the appellants M/s Oceanic Shipping Agency Pvt. Ltd. subsequently on 13.1.96 has filed a supplementary IGM with the Assistant Commissioner of Customs, Import Department, Customs House, Calcutta for the aforesaid 292 pcs. for delivery to the four Nepalese consignees which has been permitted by the said authority. It is stated that the four buyers in Nepal had also lodged their claims on the consignors M/s ITD for the short delivery and the same has also been paid. We have considered these submissions. From the copies of the shipping documents and subsequent report of the surveyors, it clearly emerges that though the shipping documents referred to total number of pcs. of M.S. Billets as 10070 but this is obviously an approximate number on account of varying lengths of billets between 4000 mm to 9000 mm. The consignment was primarily shipped by weight which happened to 5283.600 MT. As per the two survey reports, the delivery made to the four consignees was only of 5092.120 MT and balance quantity of 191.480 MT related to the 292 billets lying in the docks after the delivery had been effected to the concerned parties. This is further supported by the fact that the Import Manifest was subsequently got amended by the steamer agents of the vessel through the A.C., Customs, Import Department and four Nepali buyers have also since been compensated by the consignor in respect of the quantity of the goods short delivered to them. In this view of the matter, therefore, there is no ground to hold that the impugned 292 pcs. of M.S. Billets were illegally imported and to order for their confiscation. Consequently, there is also no warrant to impose penalty either on the steamer agents or on the importers. These two appeals are, therefore, allowed, by setting aside the order of the Commissioner of Customs.' ) $paragraphAfter = (int) 1 $cnt = (int) 9 $i = (int) 7include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
6. We have considered the submissions made by both the sides. The Commissioner in her order has observed that 292 pcs. of billets are in excess of four consignments imported by four Nepalese parties through four different clearing agents; that after the goods were taken delivery by the concerned parties, the excess quantity of 292 numbers billets were left in the docks and the same were seized by the DIU Officers. It is observed that the billets were not manifested as the full quantity was delivered to the concerned importers and even otherwise also no importer claimed the consignment found in excess. The appellants on the contrary are contending that the total 10070 pcs. of billets mentioned in the invoice are of the lengths varying from 4000 mm to 9000 mm and their weight is 5283.600 MT. As against these particulars mentioned in the shipping documents, the imported goods were sold on weight basis and as per the survey report of M/s A.G.S.Ltd. and M/s Lardner North and Company, the delivery was made to the concerned parties only of 5092.120 MT though the number of billets delivered to them is yet shown as 10070 pcs. Thus the quantity short delivered to them was 191.480 MT and this shortage represented 292 pcs.
Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Contextecho $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect');}echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'The Oceanic Shipping Agency Pvt Vs Commr of Customs P W B - Citation 23085 - Court Judgment | ', 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '23085', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => null, 'appellant' => 'The Oceanic Shipping Agency Pvt.', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'The Oceanic Shipping Agency Pvt. Vs. Commr. of Customs (P), W.B.,', 'casenote' => '', 'caseanalysis' => '', 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Calcutta', 'court_type' => 'TRI', 'decidedon' => '2001-05-16', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => '', 'findings' => '', 'judge' => '', 'judgement' => ' 1. These are two appeals - one by M/s Oceanic Shipping Agency Pvt. Ltd. and another by M/s TISCO against the order dated 20.1.98/6.3.98 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), W.B., Calcutta.</p><p align="justify">2. The brief facts of the case are that the officer of DIU (P) Unit of the Calcutta Customs House seized 292 pcs. of M.S. Billets of the size 100 mm x 100 mm x 4-9 mts. weighing 0.5247 MT per piece on 14.11.96 lying in the Shed. On enquiry, it was learnt that the vessel M.V.Svetlogorsk arrived at Calcutta Port on 14.9.96 and completed the discharge of it, cargo on 20.9.96. After delivery of full manifested quantity of 10070 pcs. of M.S. Billets by this vessel, 292 pcs. were left in the shed which were considered to be un-manifested and suspected to be cleared by the clearing agent/steamer agent and importers by way of manipulating the import documents. Accordingly, the said 292 pcs. of M.S. Billets were detained on 18.10.96.</p><p align="justify">3. On further enquiry, Shri M.K. Mukherjee of M/s Oceanic Shipping Agency Pvt. Ltd.- the steamer agents in his statement dated 27.11.96 deposed that the vessel carried 10070 pcs. of M.S. Billets weighing 5283.600 MT as per relevant Bill of Lading that the subject consignment was imported by M/s TISCO as per the invoice number dated 28.7.96. This consignment was sold by M/s TISCO to four Nepalese consignees and whole of the consignment of 10070 pcs. had been delivered to such consignees.</p><p align="justify">He stated that M/s Lardner North and Company and m/s A.G.S. India Ltd.- the surveyors were employed by them and M/s TISCO respectively for survey of the goods; that the goods were delivered but the weighment was done outside the docks. The survey report dated 17.10.96 of M/s Lardner North and Company certified 10070 pcs. of billets lying in the shed. M/s A.G.S. India also conducted the survey between 15.9.96 and 16.10.96 and certified that the importers received only 5029.12 MT instead of 5283.60 MT (Bill of Landing quantity).</p><p align="justify">4. Accordingly the proceedings were initiated and a show-cause notice dated 14.3.97 was issued to M/s Oceanic Shipping Agency Pvt. Ltd. and M/s TISCO. These proceedings culminated in the Commissioner of Customs (P), Calcutta, W.B. passing an order dated 6.3.98/20.1.98 in which the Commissioner ordered for absolute confiscation of the impugned 292 pcs.</p><p align="justify">of M.S. Billets and imposed a penalty of Rs. 10,00,000/- each on M/s Oceanic Shipping Agency Pvt. Ltd. and M/s TISCO under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962.</p><p align="justify">5. Both the above named parties are in appeal against the Order of the Commissioner of Customs. We have heard Shri S.K. Bagaria, ld. Advocate for M/s TISCO and Dr. Samir Chakraborty, and Shri Abhijit Biswas, ld.Advocate for M/s Oceanic Shipping Agency Pvt. Ltd.. We have also heard Shri V.K. Chaturvedi, ld. SDR for the respondent.</p><p align="justify">6. We have considered the submissions made by both the sides. The Commissioner in her order has observed that 292 pcs. of billets are in excess of four consignments imported by four Nepalese parties through four different clearing agents; that after the goods were taken delivery by the concerned parties, the excess quantity of 292 numbers billets were left in the docks and the same were seized by the DIU Officers. It is observed that the billets were not manifested as the full quantity was delivered to the concerned importers and even otherwise also no importer claimed the consignment found in excess. The appellants on the contrary are contending that the total 10070 pcs. of billets mentioned in the invoice are of the lengths varying from 4000 mm to 9000 mm and their weight is 5283.600 MT. As against these particulars mentioned in the shipping documents, the imported goods were sold on weight basis and as per the survey report of M/s A.G.S.Ltd. and M/s Lardner North and Company, the delivery was made to the concerned parties only of 5092.120 MT though the number of billets delivered to them is yet shown as 10070 pcs. Thus the quantity short delivered to them was 191.480 MT and this shortage represented 292 pcs.</p><p align="justify">still lying in the docks. Thus it is contended that the total number of pieces representing the imported quantity of 5283.600 MT was 10362 and not 10070 as mentioned in the shipping documents. It is further submitted that the appellants M/s Oceanic Shipping Agency Pvt. Ltd. subsequently on 13.1.96 has filed a supplementary IGM with the Assistant Commissioner of Customs, Import Department, Customs House, Calcutta for the aforesaid 292 pcs. for delivery to the four Nepalese consignees which has been permitted by the said authority. It is stated that the four buyers in Nepal had also lodged their claims on the consignors M/s ITD for the short delivery and the same has also been paid. We have considered these submissions. From the copies of the shipping documents and subsequent report of the surveyors, it clearly emerges that though the shipping documents referred to total number of pcs. of M.S. Billets as 10070 but this is obviously an approximate number on account of varying lengths of billets between 4000 mm to 9000 mm. The consignment was primarily shipped by weight which happened to 5283.600 MT. As per the two survey reports, the delivery made to the four consignees was only of 5092.120 MT and balance quantity of 191.480 MT related to the 292 billets lying in the docks after the delivery had been effected to the concerned parties. This is further supported by the fact that the Import Manifest was subsequently got amended by the steamer agents of the vessel through the A.C., Customs, Import Department and four Nepali buyers have also since been compensated by the consignor in respect of the quantity of the goods short delivered to them. In this view of the matter, therefore, there is no ground to hold that the impugned 292 pcs. of M.S. Billets were illegally imported and to order for their confiscation. Consequently, there is also no warrant to impose penalty either on the steamer agents or on the importers. These two appeals are, therefore, allowed, by setting aside the order of the Commissioner of Customs.', 'observations' => '', 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => '(2001)(136)ELT1396Tri(Kol.)kata', 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'Commr. of Customs (P), W.B.,', 'sub' => null, 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'casename_url' => 'oceanic-shipping-agency-pvt-vs-commr-customs', 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '23085', (int) 1 => 'oceanic-shipping-agency-pvt-vs-commr-customs' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'The Oceanic Shipping Agency Pvt Vs Commr of Customs P W B - Citation 23085 - Court Judgment | ' $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '23085', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => null, 'appellant' => 'The Oceanic Shipping Agency Pvt.', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'The Oceanic Shipping Agency Pvt. Vs. Commr. of Customs (P), W.B.,', 'casenote' => '', 'caseanalysis' => '', 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Calcutta', 'court_type' => 'TRI', 'decidedon' => '2001-05-16', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => '', 'findings' => '', 'judge' => '', 'judgement' => ' 1. These are two appeals - one by M/s Oceanic Shipping Agency Pvt. Ltd. and another by M/s TISCO against the order dated 20.1.98/6.3.98 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), W.B., Calcutta.</p><p>2. The brief facts of the case are that the officer of DIU (P) Unit of the Calcutta Customs House seized 292 pcs. of M.S. Billets of the size 100 mm x 100 mm x 4-9 mts. weighing 0.5247 MT per piece on 14.11.96 lying in the Shed. On enquiry, it was learnt that the vessel M.V.Svetlogorsk arrived at Calcutta Port on 14.9.96 and completed the discharge of it, cargo on 20.9.96. After delivery of full manifested quantity of 10070 pcs. of M.S. Billets by this vessel, 292 pcs. were left in the shed which were considered to be un-manifested and suspected to be cleared by the clearing agent/steamer agent and importers by way of manipulating the import documents. Accordingly, the said 292 pcs. of M.S. Billets were detained on 18.10.96.</p><p>3. On further enquiry, Shri M.K. Mukherjee of M/s Oceanic Shipping Agency Pvt. Ltd.- the steamer agents in his statement dated 27.11.96 deposed that the vessel carried 10070 pcs. of M.S. Billets weighing 5283.600 MT as per relevant Bill of Lading that the subject consignment was imported by M/s TISCO as per the invoice number dated 28.7.96. This consignment was sold by M/s TISCO to four Nepalese consignees and whole of the consignment of 10070 pcs. had been delivered to such consignees.</p><p>He stated that M/s Lardner North and Company and m/s A.G.S. India Ltd.- the surveyors were employed by them and M/s TISCO respectively for survey of the goods; that the goods were delivered but the weighment was done outside the docks. The survey report dated 17.10.96 of M/s Lardner North and Company certified 10070 pcs. of billets lying in the shed. M/s A.G.S. India also conducted the survey between 15.9.96 and 16.10.96 and certified that the importers received only 5029.12 MT instead of 5283.60 MT (Bill of Landing quantity).</p><p>4. Accordingly the proceedings were initiated and a show-cause notice dated 14.3.97 was issued to M/s Oceanic Shipping Agency Pvt. Ltd. and M/s TISCO. These proceedings culminated in the Commissioner of Customs (P), Calcutta, W.B. passing an order dated 6.3.98/20.1.98 in which the Commissioner ordered for absolute confiscation of the impugned 292 pcs.</p><p>of M.S. Billets and imposed a penalty of Rs. 10,00,000/- each on M/s Oceanic Shipping Agency Pvt. Ltd. and M/s TISCO under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962.</p><p>5. Both the above named parties are in appeal against the Order of the Commissioner of Customs. We have heard Shri S.K. Bagaria, ld. Advocate for M/s TISCO and Dr. Samir Chakraborty, and Shri Abhijit Biswas, ld.Advocate for M/s Oceanic Shipping Agency Pvt. Ltd.. We have also heard Shri V.K. Chaturvedi, ld. SDR for the respondent.</p><p>6. We have considered the submissions made by both the sides. The Commissioner in her order has observed that 292 pcs. of billets are in excess of four consignments imported by four Nepalese parties through four different clearing agents; that after the goods were taken delivery by the concerned parties, the excess quantity of 292 numbers billets were left in the docks and the same were seized by the DIU Officers. It is observed that the billets were not manifested as the full quantity was delivered to the concerned importers and even otherwise also no importer claimed the consignment found in excess. The appellants on the contrary are contending that the total 10070 pcs. of billets mentioned in the invoice are of the lengths varying from 4000 mm to 9000 mm and their weight is 5283.600 MT. As against these particulars mentioned in the shipping documents, the imported goods were sold on weight basis and as per the survey report of M/s A.G.S.Ltd. and M/s Lardner North and Company, the delivery was made to the concerned parties only of 5092.120 MT though the number of billets delivered to them is yet shown as 10070 pcs. Thus the quantity short delivered to them was 191.480 MT and this shortage represented 292 pcs.</p><p>still lying in the docks. Thus it is contended that the total number of pieces representing the imported quantity of 5283.600 MT was 10362 and not 10070 as mentioned in the shipping documents. It is further submitted that the appellants M/s Oceanic Shipping Agency Pvt. Ltd. subsequently on 13.1.96 has filed a supplementary IGM with the Assistant Commissioner of Customs, Import Department, Customs House, Calcutta for the aforesaid 292 pcs. for delivery to the four Nepalese consignees which has been permitted by the said authority. It is stated that the four buyers in Nepal had also lodged their claims on the consignors M/s ITD for the short delivery and the same has also been paid. We have considered these submissions. From the copies of the shipping documents and subsequent report of the surveyors, it clearly emerges that though the shipping documents referred to total number of pcs. of M.S. Billets as 10070 but this is obviously an approximate number on account of varying lengths of billets between 4000 mm to 9000 mm. The consignment was primarily shipped by weight which happened to 5283.600 MT. As per the two survey reports, the delivery made to the four consignees was only of 5092.120 MT and balance quantity of 191.480 MT related to the 292 billets lying in the docks after the delivery had been effected to the concerned parties. This is further supported by the fact that the Import Manifest was subsequently got amended by the steamer agents of the vessel through the A.C., Customs, Import Department and four Nepali buyers have also since been compensated by the consignor in respect of the quantity of the goods short delivered to them. In this view of the matter, therefore, there is no ground to hold that the impugned 292 pcs. of M.S. Billets were illegally imported and to order for their confiscation. Consequently, there is also no warrant to impose penalty either on the steamer agents or on the importers. These two appeals are, therefore, allowed, by setting aside the order of the Commissioner of Customs.', 'observations' => '', 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => '(2001)(136)ELT1396Tri(Kol.)kata', 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'Commr. of Customs (P), W.B.,', 'sub' => null, 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $casename_url = 'oceanic-shipping-agency-pvt-vs-commr-customs' $args = array( (int) 0 => '23085', (int) 1 => 'oceanic-shipping-agency-pvt-vs-commr-customs' ) $url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/23085/oceanic-shipping-agency-pvt-vs-commr-customs' $ctype = '' $content = array( (int) 0 => ' 1. These are two appeals - one by M/s Oceanic Shipping Agency Pvt. Ltd. and another by M/s TISCO against the order dated 20.1.98/6.3.98 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), W.B., Calcutta.', (int) 1 => '<p>2. The brief facts of the case are that the officer of DIU (P) Unit of the Calcutta Customs House seized 292 pcs. of M.S. Billets of the size 100 mm x 100 mm x 4-9 mts. weighing 0.5247 MT per piece on 14.11.96 lying in the Shed. On enquiry, it was learnt that the vessel M.V.Svetlogorsk arrived at Calcutta Port on 14.9.96 and completed the discharge of it, cargo on 20.9.96. After delivery of full manifested quantity of 10070 pcs. of M.S. Billets by this vessel, 292 pcs. were left in the shed which were considered to be un-manifested and suspected to be cleared by the clearing agent/steamer agent and importers by way of manipulating the import documents. Accordingly, the said 292 pcs. of M.S. Billets were detained on 18.10.96.', (int) 2 => '<p>3. On further enquiry, Shri M.K. Mukherjee of M/s Oceanic Shipping Agency Pvt. Ltd.- the steamer agents in his statement dated 27.11.96 deposed that the vessel carried 10070 pcs. of M.S. Billets weighing 5283.600 MT as per relevant Bill of Lading that the subject consignment was imported by M/s TISCO as per the invoice number dated 28.7.96. This consignment was sold by M/s TISCO to four Nepalese consignees and whole of the consignment of 10070 pcs. had been delivered to such consignees.', (int) 3 => '<p>He stated that M/s Lardner North and Company and m/s A.G.S. India Ltd.- the surveyors were employed by them and M/s TISCO respectively for survey of the goods; that the goods were delivered but the weighment was done outside the docks. The survey report dated 17.10.96 of M/s Lardner North and Company certified 10070 pcs. of billets lying in the shed. M/s A.G.S. India also conducted the survey between 15.9.96 and 16.10.96 and certified that the importers received only 5029.12 MT instead of 5283.60 MT (Bill of Landing quantity).', (int) 4 => '<p>4. Accordingly the proceedings were initiated and a show-cause notice dated 14.3.97 was issued to M/s Oceanic Shipping Agency Pvt. Ltd. and M/s TISCO. These proceedings culminated in the Commissioner of Customs (P), Calcutta, W.B. passing an order dated 6.3.98/20.1.98 in which the Commissioner ordered for absolute confiscation of the impugned 292 pcs.', (int) 5 => '<p>of M.S. Billets and imposed a penalty of Rs. 10,00,000/- each on M/s Oceanic Shipping Agency Pvt. Ltd. and M/s TISCO under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962.', (int) 6 => '<p>5. Both the above named parties are in appeal against the Order of the Commissioner of Customs. We have heard Shri S.K. Bagaria, ld. Advocate for M/s TISCO and Dr. Samir Chakraborty, and Shri Abhijit Biswas, ld.Advocate for M/s Oceanic Shipping Agency Pvt. Ltd.. We have also heard Shri V.K. Chaturvedi, ld. SDR for the respondent.', (int) 7 => '<p>6. We have considered the submissions made by both the sides. The Commissioner in her order has observed that 292 pcs. of billets are in excess of four consignments imported by four Nepalese parties through four different clearing agents; that after the goods were taken delivery by the concerned parties, the excess quantity of 292 numbers billets were left in the docks and the same were seized by the DIU Officers. It is observed that the billets were not manifested as the full quantity was delivered to the concerned importers and even otherwise also no importer claimed the consignment found in excess. The appellants on the contrary are contending that the total 10070 pcs. of billets mentioned in the invoice are of the lengths varying from 4000 mm to 9000 mm and their weight is 5283.600 MT. As against these particulars mentioned in the shipping documents, the imported goods were sold on weight basis and as per the survey report of M/s A.G.S.Ltd. and M/s Lardner North and Company, the delivery was made to the concerned parties only of 5092.120 MT though the number of billets delivered to them is yet shown as 10070 pcs. Thus the quantity short delivered to them was 191.480 MT and this shortage represented 292 pcs.', (int) 8 => '<p>still lying in the docks. Thus it is contended that the total number of pieces representing the imported quantity of 5283.600 MT was 10362 and not 10070 as mentioned in the shipping documents. It is further submitted that the appellants M/s Oceanic Shipping Agency Pvt. Ltd. subsequently on 13.1.96 has filed a supplementary IGM with the Assistant Commissioner of Customs, Import Department, Customs House, Calcutta for the aforesaid 292 pcs. for delivery to the four Nepalese consignees which has been permitted by the said authority. It is stated that the four buyers in Nepal had also lodged their claims on the consignors M/s ITD for the short delivery and the same has also been paid. We have considered these submissions. From the copies of the shipping documents and subsequent report of the surveyors, it clearly emerges that though the shipping documents referred to total number of pcs. of M.S. Billets as 10070 but this is obviously an approximate number on account of varying lengths of billets between 4000 mm to 9000 mm. The consignment was primarily shipped by weight which happened to 5283.600 MT. As per the two survey reports, the delivery made to the four consignees was only of 5092.120 MT and balance quantity of 191.480 MT related to the 292 billets lying in the docks after the delivery had been effected to the concerned parties. This is further supported by the fact that the Import Manifest was subsequently got amended by the steamer agents of the vessel through the A.C., Customs, Import Department and four Nepali buyers have also since been compensated by the consignor in respect of the quantity of the goods short delivered to them. In this view of the matter, therefore, there is no ground to hold that the impugned 292 pcs. of M.S. Billets were illegally imported and to order for their confiscation. Consequently, there is also no warrant to impose penalty either on the steamer agents or on the importers. These two appeals are, therefore, allowed, by setting aside the order of the Commissioner of Customs.' ) $paragraphAfter = (int) 1 $cnt = (int) 9 $i = (int) 8include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
still lying in the docks. Thus it is contended that the total number of pieces representing the imported quantity of 5283.600 MT was 10362 and not 10070 as mentioned in the shipping documents. It is further submitted that the appellants M/s Oceanic Shipping Agency Pvt. Ltd. subsequently on 13.1.96 has filed a supplementary IGM with the Assistant Commissioner of Customs, Import Department, Customs House, Calcutta for the aforesaid 292 pcs. for delivery to the four Nepalese consignees which has been permitted by the said authority. It is stated that the four buyers in Nepal had also lodged their claims on the consignors M/s ITD for the short delivery and the same has also been paid. We have considered these submissions. From the copies of the shipping documents and subsequent report of the surveyors, it clearly emerges that though the shipping documents referred to total number of pcs. of M.S. Billets as 10070 but this is obviously an approximate number on account of varying lengths of billets between 4000 mm to 9000 mm. The consignment was primarily shipped by weight which happened to 5283.600 MT. As per the two survey reports, the delivery made to the four consignees was only of 5092.120 MT and balance quantity of 191.480 MT related to the 292 billets lying in the docks after the delivery had been effected to the concerned parties. This is further supported by the fact that the Import Manifest was subsequently got amended by the steamer agents of the vessel through the A.C., Customs, Import Department and four Nepali buyers have also since been compensated by the consignor in respect of the quantity of the goods short delivered to them. In this view of the matter, therefore, there is no ground to hold that the impugned 292 pcs. of M.S. Billets were illegally imported and to order for their confiscation. Consequently, there is also no warrant to impose penalty either on the steamer agents or on the importers. These two appeals are, therefore, allowed, by setting aside the order of the Commissioner of Customs.