9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 286X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in this background of specific violation on their part to do their duties. Just because examination was done without de-stuffing, it cannot be said that the appellant had compromised to the cargo in its custody. It is pointed out that the same was examined by the customs officer and it if was violation of any regulation then the customs officer, who examined the goods is equally responsible for the same. It is apparent that the responsibility of safe transit of the goods from CFS to Port is that of the appellant and callousness in ensuring the safety and security is the violation on their part. Penalty under various regulations is reduced from ₹ 2 lakhs to ₹ 1.5 lakhs - the penalty u/s 117 cannot be upheld - appeal all ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rmalities and he also was not having ID proof to show that he was employee of the CHA. On this count, it was held that the appellant failed to follow the regulations 5(1)(m) of the Regulations. It was argued by the learned Counsel that at the material time when these people entered, the export goods was not within the premises of CFS and the entry was made into the register. 2.2 The next allegation in the show-cause notice was that the CFS permitted examination of the impugned consignment without destuffing of cargo from the container in violation of regulation 66(1)(i) of Regulations. It was argued that there is no requirement of destuffing the cargo in terms of regulation 6(1)(i). 2.3 The next violation pointed out in the notice of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se of the regulation has been invoked: - Regulation 5(1)(m) of HCCAR, 2009 read as under: - The Customs Cargo Service provider for custody of imported goods or export goods and for handling of such goods in a customs area shall fulfill the following conditions, namely:- (1) Provide the following to the satisfaction of the Commissioner of Customs, namely: (m) security and access control to prohibit unauthorized access into the premises. Regulation 6(1)(i) of HCCAR, 2009 read as under: - Responsibilities of Customs Cargo Service provider: (1) The Customs Cargo Service provider shall (i) be responsible for the safety and security of imported and export goods under its custody; Regulation 6(1)(k) of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llant had allowed transit of such cargo in the exporter truck without any safeguards and during such transit there was the substitution of cargo. This clearly established that the appellant failed to provide secured transit of the goods. The appellant also failed to fill the Form-13 properly in so far as details mentioned in the Form were incomplete and misleading. It is apparent that the responsibility of safe transit of the goods from CFS to Port is that of the appellant and callousness in ensuring the safety and security is the violation on their part. 4.3 Looking at the above facts, I find that 3 of the 4 charges are established. Accordingly, penalty under various regulations is reduced from ₹ 2 lakhs to ₹ 1.5 lakhs (rupe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
