9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 104X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... transported to Tuticorin Port from the appellant's freight station through Customs Broker. The container reached Tuticorin Port and it was duly exported and reached its destination, namely Jebel Ali Port. After 24 days i.e. on 18.3.2015, the container was recalled by the Customs based on intelligence received by them. On examination, it was found to be stuffed with 4.30 MT of red sanders. From the above, it appeared that after granting let export order, the container was tampered in transit and red sanders were stuffed inside and exported. As per Regulation 6 (1)(k) of HCCAR, 2009, the appellants were responsible for secure transit of the container from the CFS to the Port. As per Regulation 6(2) of HCCAR, 2009 they cannot outsource thi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rein it is stated that from 1.4.2015, the custodians should fill in the details such as the registration number of the trailer, whether the trailer belongs to the custodian and if not, whether permission for outsourcing has been obtained from the Commissioner. In the present case the shipping bill was filed on 21.2.2015, which is much before the above standing order issued by the Commissioner. That therefore, there is no violation of the regulations on the part of the appellant. He pleaded that the penalty imposed may be set aside. 3. The Ld.AR Shri A Cletus reiterated the findings in the impugned order. He pointed out that as per Regulation 6(1)(k) of HCCAR, 2009, the custodian (CFS) is responsible for transit of the goods from their CFS ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... toms to outsource any of the functions entrusted upon him. Undisputedly, the appellant has not obtained any such permission even though they have outsourced the responsibility of transport of the stuffed container from their CFS area to Tuticorin Port. The CFS is having the responsibility for the safe transit of the goods from one customs area to another customs area. Being the custodian of the goods, the appellant cannot wriggle out of the responsibility by saying that they had outsourced only to licenced Customs Broker and that it was not outsourced to any unknown person. The argument of the counsel in this regard is untenable. The other contention by the Ld.Counsel is that the Commissioner of Customs had issued standing order alerting in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
