2021 (9) TMI 1150 - HC - Customs

Maintainability of appeal - cost recovery charges for the period January, 2004 to March, 2021, along with applicable interest - HELD THAT - This Court on due consideration of the matter, also taking note of Section 129 of the 1962 Act, by order dated 30.06.2021, suspended the impugned Order-in-Original dated 01.03.2021 subject to the applicant/petitioner, without prejudice to its rights and contentions as advanced by it, deposits before the Principal Commissioner 50% of the amount of ₹ 15,88,36,561/- within a period of two months from that day. In the attending facts and circumstances of the case, no modification of the order is called for - application dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to Regulation 5(2) & 6(1)(o) of Handling of Cargo in Customs Areas Regulations, 2009 as ultra vires the Customs Act, 1962. Validity of an order suspending appointment of custodian for violation of bond conditions and non-compliance with regulations. Dispute over payment of cost recovery charges. Interpretation of legislative provisions regarding appeal and deposit requirements. Financial implications on a project due to regulatory compliance.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged the validity of Regulation 5(2) & 6(1)(o) of the Handling of Cargo in Customs Areas Regulations, 2009, as ultra vires the Customs Act, 1962. The impugned order suspended the appointment of a custodian due to violation of bond conditions and non-compliance with regulations. The petitioner contended that no demand for cost recovery charges was initially made, but subsequent developments led to a demand for payment. The issue at hand was whether the petitioner was liable to pay the cost recovery charges.

The Court noted the ongoing legal disputes regarding the validity of the Regulations. The petitioner argued that no other private container terminal under Major Ports was subjected to such charges. The respondent Customs authorities defended the order, highlighting the appeal process under Section 129 of the Customs Act. The Court considered the financial impact on the petitioner, involved in a significant project, and the deposit requirements for appeal cases.

The Court, in an interim measure, suspended the impugned order subject to the petitioner depositing 50% of the demanded amount. Despite the petitioner's financial constraints, the Court upheld the deposit condition considering the legislative intent. The Court dismissed the plea for modification, emphasizing adherence to the initial order. The respondents were directed to file counter-affidavits, and the case was scheduled for further hearing in November 2021.

In conclusion, the judgment addressed the complex interplay between regulatory compliance, financial obligations, and legal procedures. The Court balanced the interests of the parties while upholding the rule of law and ensuring due process. The detailed analysis provided insights into the legal arguments, regulatory framework, and the practical implications on the petitioner's project due to the ongoing dispute over cost recovery charges.