Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2022 (10) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (10) TMI 332 - AT - CustomsDemand of Customs Duty - goods allegedly pilfered from Customs Area bonded premises - defence taken by the appellant that the overall management and supervision of all imported warehousing including bonded warehouses, where the goods of importer were warehoused, was done by M/s. Asian Cargo Movers - violation of Regulation 5(1)(ii) read with Regulation 6(1)(i) of HCCAR, 2009 - levy of penalty under Regulation 12(8) read with Regulation 11 of the HCCAR, 2009 - HELD THAT:- Admittedly, the imported packages have never been opened either by the Customs Authorities for inspection nor any sample was drawn. Simply based on the declaration of the importer the goods had been allowed to be warehoused by the Customs Authorities. The same were accepted without any inspection by the appellant being sealed packages/pallets. Further, admittedly, the appellant, pursuant to order for release of the goods, had offered sealed packages/pallets to the importer for delivery. However, the importerhave disputed the goods without any evidence of pilferage - The packages were admittedly opened for the first time by the Police Officer, wherein the packing material was found instead of ‘Nutritional Supplements’ as purportedly imported. From the reports submitted by the local Commissioner appointed by the Hon’ble High Court, it is evident that he visited the site and thereafter reported that no goods were in existence at the place - customs bonded premises. The Commissioner also indicated that the FIR has been lodged with the Police, which is under investigation. The conduct of the importer also to be dubious as initially he filed bill of entry for warehousing on 4.7.2016. Thereafter, after about 15 days, he has filed request for converting the warehousing bill of entry into a bill of entry for home consumption, which was allowed on 22.07.2016, still importer did not take the delivery and again requested on 1.8.2016 for reconversion of the bill of entry to that of warehouse, which was allowed on 02.08.2016 and immediately thereafter on 5.8.2016 intimated the Customs that he has found a buyer and requested that the goods may be allowed for third country export. Further, such request was repeated on 24.05.2017 stating that they have received purchase order from a buyer at Dubai. No case of pilferage is made out against the appellant - Appeal allowed.
|