Goods wrongly loaded could not be Exported without clearance by Customs: CESTAT [Read Order]

It was found that the goods had been successfully exported and remittance against it had been received
CESTAT - Goods wrongly loaded - Customs - taxscan

The Kolkata bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) held that goods wrongly loaded by the steamer agent could not have been exported without clearance by the Customs officials themselves, at Kolkata set aside the penalty imposed under Section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962.The provision stipulates a penalty for attempting to export goods improperly.

Samudera Shipping Line (India), the Appellant, a steamer agent, was saddled with Rs. 2 lakh penalty for exporting goods without Let Export Order (LEO). Just before the goods were to be loaded, the exporter informed him that they were planning to cancel the exports. However, since the appellant did not get any further information from the exporter, he checked the Customs website which showed the details of the container as “ready for shipment”. Thus, the appellant presumed that there was no bar for loading the consignment.

The Future of Tax and Finance: Upskill with Us

“We find that without the clearance of the Customs Officials, even if the appellant had loaded the consignment without proper documents, the final export could not have taken place, unless the concerned officials sign the LEO. The fact that the consignment was finally exported shows that at some point or the other, the Customs Officials would have signed the LEO allowing the consignment to be exported out of India. In such a case, we do not find that the appellant has contravened any of the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962, as alleged.”

The bench, comprising Judicial Member R. Muralidhar and Technical Member K. Anpazhakan said the same could not have been possible without clearance by the Customs Department and  dismissed the penalty imposed on Appellant.It was found that the goods had been successfully exported and remittance against it had been received.

The appellant’s argument was determined to be strong by CESTAT. It further said that the export remittance was received in relation to the exported consignment, as determined by the adjudicating authority.

Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the Judgment

Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates

taxscan-loader