TMI Blog2015 (2) TMI 956X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch of the contravention, the legislature would have said so specifically. In the absence of any such specification in the provisions, the contention of the Revenue in this regard cannot be accepted and would amount to adding words which the legislature has not done. As per the principles of statutory interpretation, addition or deletion of words to the language employed by the legislature is not permissible. Therefore, imposition of penalty of more than ₹ 50,000/- is not permitted under the law. As regards the penalty imposed under Section 117, the said provision would apply only if there is no other penalty provide for violations of the provisions of the Handling of Cargo in Customs Area Regulations. Penalty is specified under Reg ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2(8) of the Handling of Cargo in Customs Area Regulation, 2009 and a further penalty of ₹ 1 lakh under Section 117 of the Customs Act for contravention of Regulations 6(2), 6(1)(k) and 6(1)(q) of the said Regulations read with Section 141 (2) of the Customs Act, 1962. Aggrieved of the same, the appellant is before me. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the charge against the appellant is that the appellant availed the services of transporters and cargo handlers, security agency, up-keeping and maintenance and also EDI services without obtaining prior permission from the Commissioner of Customs thereby contravening the provisions of Regulation 6(2). The appellant also contravened the provisions of Regulation 6(1)( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mposition of penalty under Section 117 would not arise at all. It is also his submission that before engaging the private parties to undertake the various cargo handling activities, they had intimated to the Dy. Commissioner vide letter dated 05/11/2009 about their intention to engage the service providers. Therefore, it cannot be said that the department was unaware of the engagement of private agencies by the cargo service provider. In these circumstances, it is his plea that the imposition of penalty is not justifiable and therefore, the order be set aside. 4. The learned Additional Commissioner (AR), on the other hand, submits that the appellant failed to ensure secure and safe transfer of containers from one CFS, to another and in b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... provide for violations of the provisions of the Handling of Cargo in Customs Area Regulations. Penalty is specified under Regulation 12(8). That being the position, the question of imposition of penalty under Section 117 would not arise at all. Therefore, the penalty imposed under Section 117 is clearly unsustainable in law. 6. To conclude, I hold that the maximum penalty that can be imposed for contravention of the Handling of Cargo in Customs Area Regulation is only ₹ 50,000/-. In the present case, the gravity of the offence committed is serious i.e. mis-use of the container for smuggling of red sanders and the facts of the case are not in dispute. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the maximum, penalty of ₹ 50,00 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
