9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (11) TMI 1612X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... steel Ltd. under Regulation 12(8) of the Handling of Cargo in Customs Area Regulation, 2009 and under Section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962 respectively for the contravention and failure to comply with the provisions of Regulations 5(5) and 6(2) of the Handling of Cargo in Customs Area Regulations, 2009 and Section 45(2)(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 respectively. Aggrieved of the same the appellant is before me. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant makes the following submission : 3.1 The appellant was granted custodial authority vide Notification No. 8/2010-Cus. (N.T.), dated 2-7-2010 under the provisions of Section 45(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Handling Cargo in Customs Areas Regulations, 2009 for the Welspun Maxsteel J ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... orrespondences, the appellant vide letter dated 16-4-2012 sought for permission for appointment of these service providers in terms of Regulation 6(2) of Handling of Cargo in Customs Areas Regulations, 2009. Thereafter, a show cause notice dated nil May, 2012 was issued to the appellant asking them to show cause as to why penalty should not be imposed on them under the provisions of Regulation 12(8) of the Handling of Cargo in Customs Areas Regulations, 2009 and/or Section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962. The said notice was adjudicated vide the impugned order and the above penalties have been imposed. 3.2 The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant inadvertently did not obtain permission for engaging the services of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vice providers and therefore, in these circumstances, the conduct of the appellant does not indicate a bona fide compliance and, therefore, imposition of penalty is justified. 5. I have carefully considered the submissions made by both the sides. As the issue lies in a narrow compass, I am of the view that the appeal itself can be disposed of at this stage. Therefore, after dispensing with the requirement of any pre-deposit of the dues and with the consent of both the sides, I take up the appeal for consideration and disposal. 5.1 Regulation 6(2) of the Handling of Cargo in Customs Areas Regulations, 2009 reads as follows : (2) The Customs Cargo Service provider approved for custody of imported or export goods and for handling of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on 45(2)(b) reads as follows : (2) The person having custody of any imported goods in a customs area, whether under the provisions of sub-section (1) or under any law for the time being in force, - (a) ; (b) shall not permit such goods to be removed from the customs area or otherwise dealt with, except under and in accordance with the permission in writing of the proper officer. Thus, Section 45 which deals with the appointment of custodians clearly lays down that goods imported into Customs area shall not be dealt with except under or in accordance with the permission of the competent authority. This is what is envisaged in Regulation 6(2) also. Therefore, violation of Section 45(2)(b) is also attracted. Once the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ediately by seeking permission for regularisation of the appointment of the service providers and the appellant did this only after several reminders and after a gap of almost six months. In these circumstances, he has imposed maximum penalty. However, the fact remains that the appellant has applied for and obtained permission from the Commissioner of Customs, though after a gap of six months or so and the entire matter has been regularised. In these circumstances, imposition of maximum penalty does not appear to be warranted. 5.5 Therefore, I reduce the penalty imposed under Regulation 12(8) of the Handling of Cargo in Customs Areas Regulations, 2009 from ₹ 50,000/- to ₹ 25,000/-. Similarly, the penalty imposed under Section ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
