2014 (2) TMI 927 - AT - Customs

Penalties under Regulation 12 (8) of the Handling of Cargo in Custom Area Regulation, 2009 and Section 158(3) of the Customs Act, 1962 and penalties on the co-appellant of ₹ 1 lakh each under Section 117 - Held that - assessee failed to produce the copy of application for registration. Moreover, in the Registration certificate survey no. 117 was not entertained, therefore although the appellant may have applied for Survey no. 117 but without they have been granted to operate from works from Survey no. 117, the appellant is not entitled to operate from Survey no. 117. In these circumstances, I do not find any infirmity with the impugned order. Further, penalty on the appellant are highly excessive, therefore, the same is reduced to 50% in the case of M/s. Ashte Logistics P. Ltd. - Decided partly in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against penalties imposed under Regulation 12(8) of Handling of Cargo in Custom Area Regulation, 2009 and Section 158(3) of Customs Act, 1962.
- Applicability of penalties under Section 117 of Customs Act, 1962.
- Validity of penalties imposed on co-appellants.
- Compliance with registration requirements for operating from Survey no. 117.
- Reduction of penalties imposed.

Analysis:
1. The appellant, M/s. Ashte Logistics Ltd., appealed against penalties imposed under Regulation 12(8) of Handling of Cargo in Custom Area Regulation, 2009 and Section 158(3) of Customs Act, 1962, along with penalties on co-appellants under Section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962.

2. The case revolved around the appellant's operation from Survey no. 117 without proper authorization, leading to the initiation of impugned proceedings and subsequent penalties. The appellant argued that the omission of Survey no. 117 in their registration was a bona fide mistake, thus contesting the imposability of penalties.

3. The appellant's counsel contended that despite referencing Survey no. 117 in their registration application, the area was not officially granted to them. However, the absence of Survey no. 117 in the registration certificate indicated that the appellant was not entitled to operate from that location. Consequently, the tribunal found no fault with the impugned order.

4. Upon review, the tribunal determined that the penalties imposed were excessive and reduced them by 50% for M/s. Ashte Logistics Ltd. Additionally, the appellant's argument against the imposability of penalties under Section 158 of the Customs Act, 1962 was dismissed, affirming the correctness of such penalties.

5. Notably, penalties on co-appellants, Shri George Joseph and Shri Chandrakant Thakkar, were reduced by 25% each. The tribunal's decision highlighted the importance of compliance with registration requirements and upheld the penalties while acknowledging the reduction due to excessiveness.

6. In conclusion, the judgment upheld the imposition of penalties under the relevant regulations, emphasized the significance of proper authorization for operational activities, and adjusted the penalties to address concerns of excessiveness, providing a balanced resolution to the appeal.