9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 1240X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 09. The impugned order is contradictory because the Commissioner in para 21 of the impugned order has dropped the proceedings against the appellant under Regulation 11 12 but in the order portion, he still imposed penalty of ₹ 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) under Regulation 12(8) of the Handling of Cargo in Customs Area Regulations 2009. Penalty not sustainable - duty of demand alongwith interest upheld - appeal allowed in part. - C/21506/2018-SM - Final Order No. 20411/2019 - Dated:- 10-5-2019 - MR. S.S GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER Mr. P.A. Augustian, Advocate For the Appellant Mr. Madhupsharan, Asst. Commissioner (AR) For the Respondent ORDER Per ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ve Hundred and Sixty Six only) by filing Warehouse Bill of Entry No. 5525779 dated 21.12.2011 under the terms and conditions specified under Section 59 and 61 of the Customs Act, 1962 and deposited the same in the CFS of the CCSP. As per the Customs Act, 1962, the bonded cargo shall be deposited in a Private or Public Warehouse Licensed under Section 57 or 58 of Customs Act, 1962. No Warehousing Licence was issued to the CFS for the storage of bonded cargo under the Act. The CCSP who is having no warehousing licence issued under the Act, received and stored the imported bonded cargo in their CFS. Thereafter on 07.08.2017, a letter was issued to the CCSP seeking explanation for the circumstances under which the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s Fifty Thousand only). Aggrieved by the said order, appellant has filed the present appeal. 2. Heard both the parties and perused the records. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that as far as demand of duty of ₹ 12,227/- (Rupees Twelve Thousand Two Hundred and Twenty Seven only) along with interest is concerned, the appellants are ready to pay the said duty for the missing bonded cargo. He further submitted that the imposition of penalty of ₹ 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) on the appellant under Regulation 12 (8) of the Handling of Cargo in Customs Area Regulations 2009 is not sustainable in law as the said penalty has been imposed without any legal basis. He further submitted t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... After considering the submissions of both the parties and perusal of the material on record, I find that as far as demand of duty amounting to ₹ 12,227/- (Rupees Twelve Thousand Two Hundred and Twenty Seven only) along with interest on the missing bonded cargo is concerned, the appellant is liable to pay the same because the goods were missing when it was in their custody and therefore they are liable to pay the said duty which has also been admitted by the learned counsel for the appellant. Further as far as imposition of penalty of ₹ 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) under Regulation 12(8) of the Handling of Cargo in Customs Area Regulations 2009, I find that no enquiry was conducted by the Commissioner under Regulation 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
