2024 (9) TMI 1503 - HC - Customs

Imposition of duty and penalty on the appellant on the pilfered goods in terms of Section 45 of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Regulation 6 of Handling of Cargo in Customs Area Regulations - principal contention of the appellant is that the appellant was not a party to the Panchnama and security of the container was the prime responsibility of the CISF deployed at ICD Tughlaqabad - HELD THAT - As is manifest from a plain reading of Section 45 (2) (b) of the Customs Act, 1962, the custodian is duty bound to not permit such goods to be removed from the customs area, except under and in accordance with the written permission of proper officer or otherwise dealt with. Section 45(3) of the Act provides that the custodian of the imported goods having been in custody is liable to pay duty in case they are pilfered while in custody. Imported Goods are defined in Section 2 (25) as goods brought into India from a place outside. Admittedly, appellant is a Customs Cargo Service Provider. Admittedly, the goods in question had entered the customs area as defined under the Act and were placed in the custody of the appellant - In terms of Section 45 of the Act and the HCCAR , being the custodian of imported goods, appellant was burdened with the responsibility of safe custody of the imported goods. Appellant cannot escape such burden by shifting its responsibility upon the CISF and has therefore been rightly held liable to pay customs duty and penalty as prescribed under Section 45 (3) of the Act and Regulation 6 (1) (j) of HCCAR, 2009. The contentions raised by the petitioner have been duly addressed - the appeal does not raise any substantial question of law. There are no merit in the instant appeal. The appeal shall stand dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Condonation of delay in filing the appeal.
2. Appeal against the final order of Customs Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) regarding duty and penalty imposition.
3. Questions raised for consideration in the appeal.

Analysis:
1. The judgment begins by addressing the delay in filing the appeal, where a delay of 11 days was condoned after considering the disclosures made, and the application was disposed of accordingly.

2. The appeal was filed against the final order of CESTAT, which affirmed the imposition of duty and penalty on the appellant under Section 45 of the Customs Act, 1962, read with Regulation 6 of Handling of Cargo in Customs Area Regulations, 2009. The facts of the case involved the importation of goods declared as "steep glass bowl" and "deep cut glass bowl," but upon inspection, it was found that there were additional branded products in the container, leading to duty imposition and penalty.

3. The appellant posed several questions for consideration, including the liability for duty payment, reliance on the panchnama, custodian's responsibility, consideration of evidence by the Appellate Tribunal, valuation of goods, and procedural aspects related to the preparation of panchnamas and imposition of penalties. The judgment extensively analyzed the legal provisions under Section 45 of the Customs Act and the responsibilities of a Customs Cargo Service Provider, concluding that the appellant, as the custodian of the imported goods, was liable for the pilferage and consequent duty payment and penalty.

4. The court rejected the appellant's contentions, stating that the appellant's responsibility for safe custody of the goods could not be shifted to others, such as the CISF, and that the appellant was rightfully held liable for the duty and penalty. The judgment highlighted the specific provisions of the Customs Act and HCCAR, emphasizing the custodian's obligations and liabilities in such cases.

5. The judgment concluded by affirming the decision of CESTAT, stating that the appeal did not raise any substantial question of law, and therefore, the appeal was dismissed for lack of merit based on the legal analysis and findings presented in the judgment.

6. Overall, the judgment provided a detailed analysis of the legal provisions, factual background, and the appellant's contentions, leading to the dismissal of the appeal based on the custodian's liability for the pilferage of imported goods and the consequent duty and penalty obligations under the Customs Act and related regulations.