SHARE

| Aug-03-2021

CESTAT Set Aside the Penalty Imposed by Revenue Department Due to Lack of Evidence

In M/s. Air India Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs [Custom Appeal No. 40035 of 2021 – SM dated July 09, 2021], M/s Air India Ltd. (“the Appellant”) was granted custodianship permission for the export of cargo. The Appellant, as a custodian, are duty bound to comply with the provisions of Customs Act, 1962 (“the Customs Act”) and allied rules i.e., the Handling of Cargo in Customs Area Regulations, 2009 (“the HCCAR”).

The Commissioner of Customs (“the Respondent”), made a surprise check at the export shed of the Appellant on August 01, 2019, the Appellant had allowed cargo to move in sterile area without checking the status of Custom clearance i.e. without checking whether ‘Let Export Order’ (“LEO”) given or not.

The Respondent opined that there are shortcomings in the function of the Appellant as custodian like in case of seizure of ‘Star Tortoise’ dated November 07, 2018 and of ‘Red Sander’ dated July 29, 2019.

The Respondent issued a Show Cause Notice(“SCN”) alleging violation of Rule 5 and Rule 6 of the HCCAR and proposing to revoke the appointment as custodian and imposed penalty of Rs 50,000/- under Regulation 12(8) of the HCCAR on the Appellant.

The CESTAT opined that, the allegation by the Respondent in SCN about smuggling of ‘Star Tortoise’ dated November 07, 2018 is false, untrue and without any basis. There is no evidence to show that the Appellants have any connection to such seizure of ‘Star Tortoises’.

Further, w.r.t. ‘Red Sanders’ noted that the cargo had reached for scanning at 16:45 hrs, the same was detained without conducting the X-Ray scan. It was again scanned only at 17:27 hrs, after the sanction of LEO. The department does not allege that the appellant has done the same with any wrongful intention. There is no allegation with regard to the goods exported under the shipping bill. Therefore, the small time difference which is a shortcoming indeed made by the Government of India carrier, is a condonable lapse.

Thus, allowed the appeal and set aside the penalty.

Online GST Course by Bimal Jain

Recorded: Certified Advanced GST Course

Course Details: Certificate of Participation will be Provided, Free GST Updates on E-mail, WhatsApp, Telegram for 1 Year, Background Material and PPT will be Provided on the downloadable basis, Total 21 Recorded Sessions (60 Hours), will be available for 120 hours or 60 Days whichever expires earlier.

For Registration:- https://cutt.ly/hxjl5Cu

Recorded: GST Course on Exports, Deemed Exports, SEZ, Imports, Merchandise Exports, Inverted Duty Structure (including Refunds)

Course Details: 6 Online Recorded Sessions of 2.30Hrs each with Background Material (BGM)

For Registration:- https://cutt.ly/pvw7mzl

For more details,
Call:
+91-8076563802 | E-mail: intern@a2ztaxcorp.com | Web: www.a2ztaxcorp.in

DISCLAIMER: The views expressed are strictly of the author and A2Z Taxcorp LLP. The contents of this article are solely for informational purpose. It does not constitute professional advice or recommendation of firm. Neither the author nor firm and its affiliates accepts any liabilities for any loss or damage of any kind arising out of any information in this article nor for any actions taken in reliance thereon.

Similar reads

Appellant is entitled to interest from the date of deposit to the date of refund

The CESTAT, New Delhi in the matter of M/s BBM Impex Pvt. Limited v. Principal Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) [Customs Early Hearing Application No.50414 of 2022 with Customs Appeal No. 51662 of

Aug-03-2021

Read More

Waiver of pre-deposit is not tenable on account of financial inability

The CESTAT, New Delhi in the matter of M/s Prem Kumar Ojha v. Commissioner of Customs-Jaipur I [Customs Miscellaneous Application No. 50245 of 2022 dated July 04, 2022] held that, in view

Aug-03-2021

Read More

Excise duty cannot be demanded for clandestine removal based on third party evidence

The CESTAT, New Delhi in the matter of M/s Shri Shyam Ingot & Castings Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise [Excise Appeal No. 52550 of 2019-SM dated August 08, 2022] held

Aug-03-2021

Read More

Arbitrary valuation of goods not subjected to BIS specifications is invalid

The CESTAT, Chennai in the matter of M/s. SK Enterprises v The Commissioner of Customs [CUSTOMS APPEAL No. 40017 of 2022 dated June 24, 2022] set aside and held that the revaluation of the goods

Aug-03-2021

Read More

EOU not entitled to claim refund of TED on its own, may avail of the entitlements of DTA supplier specified in FTP

The Supreme Court of India in the matter of Sandoz Private Limited v. Union of India [Civil Appeal No. 3358 of 2020 dated January 4, 2020] upheld the decision of the Bombay High Court that Export

Aug-03-2021

Read More