SORABJI AND COMPANY PVT. LTD. Vs. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS AND CENTRAL EXCISE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is a steamer agent, reprering its foreign principals, Messrs. V/O Sovfracht 2. 'Captain Hornblover' is a vessel operated by the petitioner's principals. She carried a bulk cargo of oil and discharged at Cochin 4144.478 metric tonnes. The Collector of Customs, the 1st respondent, by Ext. PI order dated 11 -7 -1969 found that there was a shortage of 101.321 metric tonnes of high speed diesel oil which ought to have been delivered at Cochin and that the petitioner representing its principals Was liable to pay a penalty of Rs. 62,353.29 under Section 116 of the Customs Act, 1962. This order was confirmed in appeal by the 2nd respondent by Ext. P2 order dated 15 -4 -1975, and, ject to a reduction of the penalty to Rs. 20,000/ -, by the 3rd respondent by Ext. P4 order dated 18 -11 -1976. These orders are challenged by the petitioner.

(2.) COUNSEL for the petitioner, Shri Pathrose Mathai, submits that the impugned orders are invalid in so far as the authorities have failed to take into account certain relevant facts. Counsel points out that the total cargo mentioned in the bill of lading is an approximate quantity. The bill of Jading states : 'Say 10,329,911 kilos of High Speed Diesel Oil'. This quantity, counsel states, is not exact, and a reasonable margin should have been allowed to take into account the quantity liable to be lost for reasons such as evaporation, loss during discharge, etc.

(3.) SHRI Pathrose Mathai refers to the decision of the Supreme Court in Hindustan Steel Limited v. State of Orissa -A.I.R. 1970 S.C. 253 and submits that in the absence of any evidence to show that the carrier acted 'deliberately in defiance of law, or was guilty of conduct contumacious or dishonest, or acted in conscious disregard of its obligation,' the Customs authorities are not justified in imposing a penalty under Section 116.