ORDER
K. Gopal Hegde, Member (J)
1. The Revision Application filed before the Govt. of India against the Order No. 750/1980 dated 30th October, 1980 passed by the Central Board of Excise & Customs, statutorily stood transferred to the Tribunal for being heard as an appeal.
2. The Collector of Customs imposed a penalty of Rs. 62,126/- on the appellants under Section 116 of the Customs Act. The appellants preferred an appeal against this order before the Board. Their main contention before the Board was that the BPT outturn report only indicated that 3 bales out of 26 bales were shortlanded. The value of the 3 bales shortlanded comes to Rs. 7707.41 and therefore the Collector was unjustified in imposing a penalty of Rs. 62,126/-. The Board rejected the appellant’s contention and rejected the appeal also.
3. During the hearing of this appeal, Shri R.R. Mehta appearing for the appellants contended that the claim of the consignee for refund was based on defective outturn report issued by BPT. He further urged that there had been considerable delay of nearly 2 years in making the refund claim. Therefore, an inference has to be drawn that the claim itself was a false claim and the value of the goods shortlanded could not exceed Rs. 7707.41. He, therefore, prayed that the order passed by the Board may be set aside and consequential relief may be granted.
4. Shri Pal appearing for the Respondent Collector submitted that the outturn report is issued by the BPT not on the basis of the B/E but on the basis of tally sheets. Tally sheets are prepared in the presence of the representatives of the steamer agent. If there is any difference, the steamer agent would object. The steamer agents have not chosen to get the outurn report amended nor did they produce any evidence in support of their contention that the value of the shortlanded goods was as stated by them. He, therefore, prayed that the appeal may be rejected.
5. We have carefully considered the submissions made on both sides. Shri Mehta did not dispute the shortlanding of 3 bales. His contention was as to the value of the 3 bales and the duty payable in respect of those 3 bales. When once the steamer agents admit the shortlanding, the burden would be on the steamer agent to establish the value and the duty payable. No satisfactory evidence has been adduced by the steamer agent to establish the value or the duty payable on the shortlanded goods. To satisfy ourselves, we looked into the two Bs/E under which 26 bales were cleared. We looked into the total weight and even adopting the average, we find that duty comes very much to the amount of penalty imposed by the Collector. The Senior depttl. representative Shri Pal had further verified from the records and given the value of the shortlanded goods and the duty payable. There is no reason for not accepting this statement made by Shri Pal.
6. On careful consideration of all the aspects, we see no merit in this appeal and accordingly reject the same.