9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (9) TMI 1503X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the final order rendered by Customs Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ["CESTAT"] dated 10.10.2023 and which has affirmed the imposition of duty and penalty on the appellant in terms of Section 45 of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Regulation 6 of Handling of Cargo in Customs Area Regulations ["HCCAR"], 2009. 2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts as are essential for the holistic view of the entire matter are as follows. 3. M/s. Pico Trading Co. had filed Bill of Entry dated 27.10.2011 for clearance of goods imported in a container. The goods were declared as "steep glass bowl" and "deep cut glass bowl" with declared valued of Rs. 8,12,745.6/-. Based on the specific intelligence, the container was examined on 02.11.2011/03.11. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 10.2023. Feeling aggrieved, appellant has preferred the present appeal, posing the following questions for our consideration:- i) Whether the Appellant/CONCOR was liable for any payment duty under Section 45 of the Customs Act read with Rule 6 of Handling of Cargo in Custom Area Regulation, 2009? ii) Whether any reliance be placed on the panchnama which was seen prepared without the presence of officials of Appellant/CONCOR? iii) Whether liability can be thrust upon Appellant/CONCOR merely because Appellant/CONCOR is the Custodian of Goods? iv) Whether the liability of Appellant/CONCOR is made out after the investigation made by Police as well as CISF exonerated the Appellant/CONCOR? v) Whether the Hon'ble Appellate Tribunal f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s Act is not applicable, inasmuch as, the payment of duty under this provision is related to cases of unloading of imported goods in the Customs Area and not in case where the goods have been seized by the Customs Officers. 8. We find ourselves unable to sustain the challenge for the following reasons. 9. As is manifest from a plain reading of Section 45 (2) (b) of the Customs Act, 1962, the custodian is duty bound to not permit such goods to be removed from the customs area, except under and in accordance with the written permission of proper officer or otherwise dealt with. Section 45(3) of the Act provides that the custodian of the imported goods having been in custody is liable to pay duty in case they are pilfered while in custody. " ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
