9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (10) TMI 990X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Customs Department without looking into factual aspects and conditions of each such permissions/supervisions of activities of the Respondent? - HELD THAT:- The record bears out, and the Tribunal, in its detailed order, has held that there was no breach of any of the conditions of the licence. This is purely a finding of fact, and such finding is supported by the material on record. Accordingly, not even a ground alleging perversity or otherwise to assail this finding of fact was even proposed in this Appeal. The CESTAT has not only taken due note of the circumstances in which the goods are discharged through a high-pressure pipeline from the vessel directly into the tanks but has taken cognisance of the permissions granted by the Customs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s a substantial question of law. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble CESTAT was correct in law in setting aside the imposition of penalties under Sections 117 and 112 (b) (ii) of the Customs Act, 1962 for violations including non-reporting of time-expired bonds, storage of non-bonded goods in bonded tanks, and lack of audit trail facilities? - HELD THAT:- Once it is held that there was no breach of any of the terms and conditions of the licence and that the goods themselves were not liable for confiscation, there was no question of imposing any fines or penalties - In any event, the Tribunal has recorded the findings that there were no breaches, and consequently, there was no case of inferring any improper im ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... permissions were issued by Customs Department for unloading/storing of goods and/or such activities were done under the supervision of Customs Department without looking into factual aspects and conditions of each such permissions/supervisions of activities of the Respondent? (II) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble CESTAT was correct in law in overlooking the procedures outlined in JNCH Public Notice No. 155/2016 and the Board's Circular No. 08/2021 regarding advance discharge permission and the mandatory filing of Bills of Entry before the vessel's arrival? (III) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble CESTAT was correct in law in setting aside the imposition of penalties ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Respondent was dealing with edible oils, etc., that had to be discharged from a vessel through a high-pressure pipeline. He submitted that such discharge cannot be stopped midway to avoid accidents. He, therefore, submitted that necessary permissions were sought and obtained to facilitate this process. 8. In such circumstances, Dr Kantawala submitted that there was no breach of any of the conditions of the licence. In any event, he submitted that the issue of the breach was a question of fact and the Tribunal, on considering the entire material on record, has answered this question of fact favouring the Respondent. He submitted that there was not even an allegation of perversity regarding such a finding of fact. Accordingly, he submitted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... this finding of fact was even proposed in this Appeal. 14. The CESTAT has not only taken due note of the circumstances in which the goods are discharged through a high-pressure pipeline from the vessel directly into the tanks but has taken cognisance of the permissions granted by the Customs Authorities from time to time. The allegation that such permissions have been misinterpreted or misconstrued is without basis. We have seen the applications made by the Respondent giving full particulars and the permissions granted by the authorities by way of endorsements on the very said applications. On a conjoint reading of the applications made by the Respondent and the permissions granted thereon, we do not think there is any case of breach of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e goods themselves were not liable for confiscation, there was no question of imposing any fines or penalties. Besides, we disapprove of the approach of the Principal Commissioner in invoking the residual provisions of Section 117 of the Customs Act upon realising that no fines or penalties could be imposed under Sections 111 and 112 of the Customs Act. In any event, the Tribunal has recorded the findings that there were no breaches, and consequently, there was no case of inferring any improper importation or confiscation of goods. In such circumstances, it is not necessary to go into the question of whether a redemption fine could be imposed even if the goods were not available. 19. In BISCO Limited (supra), the Hon ble Supreme Court noted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
