2025-VIL-948-CESTAT-MUM-CU

CUSTOMS CESTAT Cases

Customs – Sections 34, 39 and 41 of Customs Act, 1962 – Regulations 5, 10(1)(m) and 11 of Sea Cargo Manifest and Transshipment Regulations, 2018 – Export of goods – Filing of shipping bills – Implementation of regulations – Exporter filed shipping bills for export of goods through their customs broker – While processing shipping bills for allowing drawback on exports, error message of ‘Let Export Order (LEO) date greater than sailing date’ appeared in customs EDI system – Appellants/Authorised Sea Agent had taken up the matter of rectifying Export General Manifest (EGM) error by filing request letter to proper officer of customs on basis of letter given by shipping company – On basis of inquiry report, Commissioner had passed impugned order for suspending operations of Appellants for failure to comply with provisions of Regulations 5 & 10(1)(m) of the Regulations – Whether Appellants have violated provisions of Regulations 5 & 10(1)(m) of the Regulations or not – HELD – Due to various technical difficulties and lack of preparedness of stake holders in participating and filing of details under the Regulations, implementation of such regulations were kept on extended for more than five years – Where CBIC had specifically directed Commissioners to sensitise the field officers not to take penal action in interim period, impugned order invoking provisions of the Regulations, which is yet to be implemented on relevant date of shipping bills concerning present case, for imposition of suspension of operation of Appellants does not stand for legal scrutiny – Impugned order holding that Regulations 5 and 10(1)(m) of the Regulations have been violated by Appellants does not stand the scrutiny of law – Appeal allowed - Whether Appellants have violated provisions of Sections 34, 39, 40 & 41 of the Act – HELD – In terms of legal provisions of Sections 34 and 39 of the Act, export goods shall not be loaded on to a vessel except under supervision of proper officer of Customs and master of vessel shall not permit loading of any export goods, until an order has been granted for entry outwards for such vessel by proper officer of customs – Only allegation levelled in present case is that LEO copy was not provided to shipping line/master of vessel on date when it sailed duly obtaining Entry Outwards by Customs authorities, after all export goods have been loaded under supervision of proper officer of Customs – There is no case for violation of provisions of Sections 34 and 39 of the Act – Plain reading of Section 41 of the Act make it clear that shipping lines or shipping agent or such other authorised persons alone are responsible for filing EGM within prescribed time – It is not the case of Revenue that EGM for vessel has not been filed, therefore, there is no case of violation of Section 41 of the Act - Suspension of operations – Imposition of penalty – Whether Appellants are liable for suspension of their operations under Regulation 11 of the Regulations or not – HELD – Process of issue of LEO for a shipping bill is the function of proper officer of Customs – In case of any undue delay in issue of LEO, exporter or his agent cannot be found fault and they cannot be allowed to loose the loading of export goods into the vessel, though which export goods were planned to be exported – Appellants have not violated any of legal provisions in not submitting LEO copy of shipping bills to person in-charge of vessel before sailing of vessel, particularly when Appellants have filed request for rectification of such error – Impugned order suspending operation of Appellants and imposing penalties on Appellants does not sustain and hence, set aside.

Quick Search

/

Create Account



Log In



Forgot Password


Please Note: This facility is only for Subscribing Members.

Email this page



Feedback this page