9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (10) TMI 143X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... missioner of Customs under Section 117 of the Customs Act - most of the violations were prior to 10-5-2008, penalty is reduced - C/1257/2009-Mum - A/360/2011-WZB/C-IV(SMB) - Dated:- 19-9-2011 - Shri Sahab Singh, J. REPRESENTED BY : Shri Arun Mehta, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri S.R. Bhati, DC (AR), for the Respondent. [Order]. This is an appeal against the Order-in-Original passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Export), dated 19-8-2009. 2. The brief facts of the case are that area of M/s. Punjab State Container Warehousing Corporation Ltd. (CONWARE), Dronagiri Node, Navi Mumbai was notified as Customs Area for the purpose of storage, stuffing/de-stuffing and clearance of export/import goods under Section 8 o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a should not be withdrawn and outstanding amount of cost recovery charges should not be recovered from them and why the penalty for violation of provisions of the Customs Act as well as Rules and Regulation and instructions issued in this regard should not be imposed on them. The show-cause notice was contested by the appellant. Same was adjudicated by the Commissioner of Customs vide the impugned order imposing a penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) on the appellant under Section 117 of the Customs Act. 3. The learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that in the show-cause notice dated 12-5-2008 no specific provisions of the Customs Act, has been invoked for imposition of penalty. Therefore, the penalty cannot be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Since the offence was committed prior to this period the amended Section 117 cannot be applied in this case. 5. The learned DR appearing for the Revenue stated that as per the Board s Circular dated 14-12-1995 and Public Notice No. 3/96 dated 29-1-1996 custodian is required to follow all the Rules and Regulations and instructions and also bear the cost of Custom staff, posted in the CFS. He further submitted that no portion of the area can be subletted without prior approval of the Commissioner of Customs and initial appointment of the custodian is for 5 years. The appellants have violated the provisions of the Board Circular in as much as they have not paid the cot recovery charges and even after expiry of 5 years they were working as c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... subletting but an arrangement with regard to some of the activities inside the CFS. This is a fact that there was no prior approval taken from the Commissioner of customs before making this arrangement. Therefore the Commissioner s finding that transfer/subletting of some functions for the custodian to operator without permissions of the Commissioner of Customs is also sustainable. Third allegation against custodian is that appellant continued to work as custodian without approval after expiry of Notification No. 1/2000. There is nothing on the record or any reply submitted to the Commissioner of Customs to prove that notification was further renewed. Therefore Commissioner s finding for violation of this condition is also sustained. 7. I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
