1. This appeal arises out of and is directed against the order dated 16.3.82 passed by the Appellate Collector of Customs Calcutta in order No. Cal-Cus-575/82 on his file by which he rejected the appellants' appeal filed against the order of the Dy. Collector of Customs. M.C.D.Calcutta dated 23.2.81 2. The facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal are stated as under: The Calcutta Port Trust reported shortlanding of 1509 bags of urea out of 125,741 bags discharged by the above ship manifested under line No. I. The Customs Authorities imposed a penalty of Rs. 72, 270/- on the appellants under Section 116 of the Customs Act 1962.
Feeling aggrieved by the order of the Deputy Collector of Customs, M.C.D., the appellants preferred an appeal unsuccessfully7 before the Appellate Collector of Customs, Calcutta and hence this appeal.
3. Shri S.K. Ghosal, Dy. Manager (Claims) appeared for the appellants and contended that the Deputy Collector of Customs and the Appellate Collector of Customs have failed to take into consideration 836 bags of sweepings cleared by the Food Corporation of India and if the total weight of the sweepings cleared is deducted the shortlanding, by the way, comes to only 35.006M/T and, therefore, Customs Authorities were not justified in levying a penalty of Rs. 72,270'-. It is also contended by Shri Ghosal that the duty chargeable was only 5% ad valorem + 15% C V.D. but they were charged higher duly. Therefore, he prayed for setting aside the order of the Deputy Collector as well as the Appellate Collector.
4. Shri U.K Sen, for the Department, however, urged that the appellants have not adduced any convincing evidence to show that the consignee has collected 836 bags of sweepings. He, however, contended that the appellants' contention that for the purpose of imposing penalty concessional rate of duty should have been taken into consideration, has no legal force as the goods did not land at all.
5 Having regard to the rival contentions, points that fall for consideration are whether : (i) the appellants establish that the consignee has collected 836 bags of sweepings weighing 40. 444 M/T; (ii) the penalty should have been on the basis of concessional rate of duty.
6. The appellants have urged both these contentions before the Appellate Collector, The Appellate Collector has observed in his order : On examination of the case records, it is found that the appellants have not furnished any amended O.T.R. or letter of confirmation from the consignees. The case records show that the appellants admitted in their letter No. 943/KLC/Usha/145/78 dated 20.12,79. shortlanding of 1100 bags after adjustment of sweepings cleared by the consignees.
In spite of the above observation, the appellants did not produce any (document before us wherein the consignee have admitted having cleared (sweepings weighing 40. 444 MT. Now having regard to their letter referred to by the Appellate Collector in his order, the present contention of the appellants cannot be accepted.
7. As regards concessional rate of duty, the Appellate Collector has observed that the concessional rate of duty is not applicable on the short-landed goods which are not meant for purposes mentioned in the Government of India Notification. We agree with this finding of the Appellate Collector. The concessional rate becomes applicable only when the goods arc landed, In the result, this appeal fails and the same is rejected.