BY TIOL News Service

MUMBAI, MAR 10, 2017: THIS is a Revenue appeal against the order passed by Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai dropping proceedings initiated against the respondent for contravention of section 30 and 32 off Customs Act, 1962. Take note that the appeal filed in the year 2006 was heard in October 2016 and the respondent was unrepresented.

The adjudicating Commissioner held that the amendment of the Import General Manifest has been necessitated because of a request from the shipper.

The AR pointed out that the respondent are shipping agents who, having filed Import General Manifest dated 1st April 2005, had on 11th April 2005 sought amendment of item no. 49 against bill of lading dated 10th March 2005 to substitute M/s Ratnamani Metals and Tubes Ltd., Ahmedabad as consignee in lieu of M/s Kirtanlal & Sons. The charge against the respondent is that the manifest had not made any reference to M/s Ratnamani Metals and Tubes Ltd., Ahmedabad and the goods had been off-loaded in India without being manifested.

The AR informed the Bench that the reviewing authority had directed filing of the appeal in view of the CBEC Circular no. 13/2005-Cus .

The Member (Technical) in his inimitable style penned a verbose order wherein he inter alia observed -

+ These instructions [Circular no. 13/2005-Cus .]are not binding on the Tribunal and we are, hence, afforded the luxury of implementing the Customs Act, 1962.

+ There is no doubt that goods have been unloaded, whether inadvertently or otherwise, but there is no allegation that these were not inventorised in the records of the duly appointed custodian. In the absence of any such evidence, invoking of section 111(g) for confiscation is not in accordance with law.

+ To the extent that the manifest was filed in accordance with the prescription under section 30 of Customs Act, 1962, and the truth thereof subscribed to on the basis of documentation on record, allegation that section 30 has been contravened will not sustain.

+ No administrative instruction can limit or impede statutory empowerment. The peremptoriness of the instruction in the circular is contrary to law and, to that extent, renders it unenforceable.

+ There is no dispute that the goods were intended for unloading at Mumbai port. Section 32 forbids the unloading of goods at the port for which the goods are not manifested. The purpose of section 30 and section 32 is to ensure that only such goods as are, and can be, cleared from that port on payment of duty alone shall be unloaded. The impugned consignment is not alleged to have been intended for any other port.

+ The above provisions of Customs Act, 1962 refer to the regulations pertaining to filing of manifest and, undoubtedly, the relevant regulations do prescribe details to be entered therein but, to the extent that section 111(e) and (g) refer only to the goods, and not material particular, error in names of consignee does not justify confiscation.

Holding that the adjudicating Commissioner was correct in accepting the contention of the respondent, the Revenue appeal was dismissed.

(See 2017-TIOL-773-CESTAT-MUM)