9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (6) TMI 671 - AT - CustomsOperating duty-free shop without possessing a Special Warehouse licenced premises - illegal sales of foreign made liquor imported duty-free - Sale of duty-free goods directly from the duty-free shop without warehousing the same in the Special Warehouse - Transferring a special warehouse licenced premises without the knowledge of the Department. HELD THAT - The admitted facts are that the Airport Authority of India had awarded a contract to the appellant for running the Duty-Free Shop at the International Airport Trivandrum and to run the Duty-Free Shop at an International Airport, a Special Warehouse Licence is necessary to store the goods and accordingly, the appellant was issued with a Special Warehouse Licence under Section 58A of the Customs Act 1952 which provides a Licence along with a place (warehouse) where dutiable goods are to be deposited and all the goods in the warehouse are to be brought into and removed only with the permission of the Customs officers. As observed by the Commissioner in the impugned order since the new premises was allotted within 15 days of the original allocation the appellant started operating only from the new premises but without getting the Licence amended. But the fact remains that the goods were stored and removed from the new premises under the Customs supervision. Therefore, the appellant cannot be alleged with any illegality in as much as there is no evidence to prove that goods were not stored or removed without the customs supervision. The re-warehousing certificate before us clearly shows that the entry of goods into the Special Warehouse and exit were all done with the knowledge of the Customs Officers and therefore, there is no irregularity in storing of the goods at the special warehouse at the new premises. From the facts of the case, the alleged irregularities were actually noticed at the Duty-Free Shop at the Trivandrum Airport which resulted in cancellation of the Special Warehouse Licence. It is a fact that the Duty-Free Shop cannot function without the goods being stored at the special warehouse allotted to the appellant and it is essential to operate the special warehouse to run the Duty-Free Shop. The original smaller space was provisionally allotted and within 15 days the larger space of 154 sq. mtr. which was allotted and in use under the supervision of the Customs Officers need to be included in the licence - the Commissioner are directed to restore the original Licence and to consider amending the licence to incorporate the space of 154 sq. mtr., if otherwise, in accordance with the provisions of law. The impugned order is set aside - the appeal is allowed by way of remand to Commissioner with a direction to restore the original Special Warehousing Licence.
Issues Involved:
1. Operating duty-free shop without possessing a Special Warehouse licensed premises. 2. Sale of duty-free goods directly from the duty-free shop without warehousing the same in the Special Warehouse. 3. Transferring a special warehouse licensed premises without the knowledge of the Department. 4. Non-appointment of a warehouse keeper and non-compliance with Regulation 6(2) and 10 of Special Warehouse (Custody and Handling of goods) 2016. Summary: Issue 1: Operating duty-free shop without possessing a Special Warehouse licensed premises The appellant, M/s. Plus Max Duty Free Pvt. Ltd., was issued a Special Warehouse Licence No. 1/2017-18 dated 31.08.2017 u/s 58A of the Customs Act, 1962, for a space measuring 35.89 sq. meters at Trivandrum International Airport. However, within 15 days, a larger space of 154 sq. meters was allotted, and the appellant started operating from the new premises without amending the licence. The Customs Officers supervised the storage and removal of goods from the new premises, thus the appellant did not operate without Customs supervision. The Tribunal found no evidence of goods being stored or removed without Customs supervision and set aside the Commissioner's order canceling the licence. Issue 2: Sale of duty-free goods directly from the duty-free shop without warehousing the same in the Special Warehouse The Tribunal observed that the goods were stored and moved under the supervision of Customs officers. The Mahazar drawn on 21.12.2017 confirmed that the process of transfer from outside the warehouse to inside was supervised by Customs officers, and necessary entries were made in the registers. Therefore, the appellant cannot be alleged with any illegality in this regard. Issue 3: Transferring a special warehouse licensed premises without the knowledge of the Department The appellant did not amend the licence to reflect the new premises. However, the Customs officers were aware and supervised the operations from the new premises. The Tribunal noted that the Commissioner's order mentioned taking necessary action against the concerned officers, acknowledging their awareness of the new premises. Therefore, the Tribunal found no fault with the appellant in this regard. Issue 4: Non-appointment of a warehouse keeper and non-compliance with Regulation 6(2) and 10 of Special Warehouse (Custody and Handling of goods) 2016 The Tribunal found that Shri. P. Madhan was appointed as a location Manager responsible for the warehouse, thus there was no violation regarding the appointment of a warehouse keeper. Other allegations related to statutory returns and documents pertained to the Duty-Free Shop and were separate from the Special Warehouse operations. Conclusion: The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and directed the Commissioner to restore the original Special Warehousing Licence and consider amending the licence to incorporate the space of 154 sq. meters, in accordance with the provisions of law. The appeal was allowed by way of remand to the Commissioner. (Order pronounced in Open Court on 14.06.2024.)
|
