Page 300 - ELT_15th July 2020_Vol 373_Part 2

282 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 373
No. 3 and verified in detail all the documents, records and systems
available on board. On verification, certain records as listed below
and few email correspondences exchanged by the Master were in-
dentified to be relevant and useful for the subject investigation and
the same were furnished by the Master of the vessel under the pro-
visions of the Customs Act, 1962.
(i) Deck Log Book maintained for the period from Dec., 2013 to
Jan., 2014.
(ii) Deck Log Book maintained for the period from Feb., 2014 to
Mar., 2014
(iii) One Box File comprising of ship’s ports of call related docu-
ments.
(iv) Accordingly, from the foregoing discussions made hitherto
on the relevant documents/records of the vessel MT
CLAYTON II, it appears that in respect of its voyages No. 1
and 3, the subject vessel had loaded bitumen originally at
Port Bandar Abbas, Iran and then proceeded to the Port
Karwar by only touching the anchorages of Port Khor Fak-
kan (Voy. 1) and Port Khalid (Voy. 3), as the case may be.
(v) On comparison of these findings of investigation with the
relevant import documents furnished to Customs by the im-
porter AICL for clearance of bitumen imported per vessel,
MT CLAYTON II in voyages No. 1 and 3, it appears that the
origin of goods indicated as ‘UAE’ and port of loading indi-
cated as “Sharjah” in the import documents is false. It there-
fore appears that there is misdeclaration regarding origin of
the subject goods. It further appears that the relevant ship-
ping/import documents viz., stowage plan, Load port ullage
survey, statement of facts, bills of lading, quantity certificate
etc., have been fudged and manipulated so as to falsely indi-
cate the port of loading/country of origin as “Sharjah/UAE”,
as the case may be.
Based on these above allegations, the show cause notice dated 26-3-2014 pro-
posed to confiscate the impugned consignment imported by the appellant under
Section 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962 as the imported goods did not corre-
spond in respect of material particulars i.e., country of origin and port of loading
with the entry made in the impugned Bills of Entry and also under Section
111(d), as the said goods were imported in violation of provisions of FEMA read
with RBI Circular No. 31, dated 27-12-2010 read with Foreign Exchange Man-
agement (Manner of Receipt and Payment) Regulations, 2000. The appellant filed
a detailed reply dated 22-4-2014 to the said show cause notice and contested the
allegation made in the show cause notice. The Commissioner of Customs, after
following the due process vide the impugned order rejected the submission of
the appellant and ordered confiscation of the imported goods under Section
111(m) and 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 and imposed redemption fine of
Rs. 25,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty-five lakh only) in lieu of the confiscation; im-
posed penalty of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees Five lakh only) under Section 112(a) of
the Customs Act, 1962 and also imposed a penalty of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees Two
lakh only) under Section 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962. However, the Com-
missioner has also imposed penalties on other co-noticees namely steamer agents
M/s. Marinelinks Shipping Agencies to the tune of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees Two
lakh only) and the Master of the vessel Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees Two lakh only)
EXCISE LAW TIMES  15th July 2020  300