Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + HC Customs - 2022 (12) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (12) TMI 1340 - HC - CustomsLevy of Customs Duty - pilfered goods or not - loss of the cargo on account of the super cyclone - cargo covered by Bills of Entry (B/E) but not cleared by M/s. MESCO Steel - penalty as assessed in terms of Section 114A read with Section 117 of the Act? - HELD THAT:- It has not been able to be disputed by the Customs Authorities that goods stored in open spaces, stocking yards remained at owner’s risk. Section 42(2) of the MPT Act clearly states that the Port Authority would not be responsible for any pilferage or damage or loss. This was also incorporated in the license issued to MESCO as a condition. The Customs Authorities, also have not been able to dispute the fact that although MESCO sent a letter on 1st April, 2000 informing them of the loss of cargo in the super cyclone, no action was taken till the issuance of SCN three years later on 18th July, 2003. This delay has not been explained. If the goods themselves were not available on account of the super cyclone, it is inconceivable how the PPT could be made liable to pay customs duty on such goods under Section 45(3) of the Act which applies only in a situation where imported goods are “pilfered after unloading”. There is absolutely no material to come to the conclusion that the aforementioned goods not cleared by MESCO were ‘pilfered’. There cannot be any presumption on this score as has been done in the adjudication order and the appellate orders. The three orders run contrary to the factual position regarding loss of the cargo on account of the super cyclone as informed by MESCO to the Customs Authorities on 1st April, 2000 itself. The case on hand is on an even better footing. As far as the present case is concerned, there is sufficient material available on record to show that the goods in question were in fact lost in the super cyclone. Therefore, any attempt to fasten liability on PPT i.e. the Port Authority under Section 45(3) of the Act would not only be misconceived but legally unsustainable. This Court has no hesitation in setting aside the adjudication order, and the Appellate Orders of the Commissioner (Appeals) and CESTAT affirming such order has been entirely without legal basis - Appeal allowed.
|