(1.) PETITIONER has challenged imposition of penalty under Section 116, Customs Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on account of goods short -landed. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that notice under Section 116 of the Act had to be issued to the person -in -charge of the conveyance and not to the owner of the conveyance, the petitioner is the owner of the conveyance and cannot be said to be the person -in -charge. Section 116 imposes liability on account of short -landing of goods on the person -in -charge of the conveyance. The expression person -in -charge has been defined in Section 2, sub -section (31) of the Act to mean : '(b) in relation to an aircraft, the Commander or pilot -in -charge of the aircraft.' The aircraft in question had a pilot -in -charge and notice under Section 116 of the Act should have addressed to him rather than to the petitioner who is the owner of the conveyance.
(2.) WE have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. Mr. Neeraj Kaul, the learned Counsel for the respondents submitted in reply to the above argument that in view of the provision of Section 148 of the Act, the owner of the conveyance is deemed to be the agent of the person -in -charge of the conveyance and thereforee, the notice was rightly served on the petitioner. The learned counsel has pointed out various practical difficulties if the notice is required to be served only on the person -in -charge of the conveyance. The most important being that if a commander/pilot of the aircraft has to go through the proceedings envisaged in Section 116 of the Act, the flights will get unduly delayed, besides the fact that a commander or pilot will never accept V -such a responsibility.
(3.) IT needs to be noted here that as a matter of fact, the person -in -charge of the aircraft does not deal with the cargo either for loading or for unloading. It is the grand staff of the airlines appointed by the airlines, who handles the cargo.