Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2019 (8) TMI 274

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... pellant's Container Freight Station is situated at A/1/46/1, Paharpur Road, P.O. & P.S. Rabindra Nagar, Kolkata - 700 066. The appellant carries on business of Container Freight Station providing Customs Cargo Service such as storing and handling of the Custom's Cargo till clearance of the goods by Customs Department. The appellant had set up port like infrastructure for handling of Containerised Cargo. Container Freight Stations are set up on license to ease congestion at port. In normal course of business goods imported at Haldia Port in containers are shifted to the Container Freight Stations of the appellant amongst other Container Freight Stations to ease congestion at the port. The petitioner stores the containers as operator of Con .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... mely "Five Star Warehouse", adjacent to LCL (CFS) for repairing of the trailer. The appellant's engineer as well as a technical team was sent immediately but the trailer could not be repaired. Ultimately on 13th March, 2019, the appellant sought permission from the Assistant Commissioner posted at the appellant's CFS namely Mr. S. K. Biswas to shift the container to a substitute trailer being no. WB 41A 4340, which was allowed. The container was loaded on trailer bearing no. WB41A 4340 on 13th March at about 7:00 P. M. and driven by a driver employed by LCL (CFS). It reached the appellant's CFS at 3:00 A.M. on 14th March 2018. The status and the movement of the container was all throughout reported to the officers of the Customs posted at .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... pellant denied all the charges as not tenable on the following grounds:- (i) Firstly, because of the break down, it was not possible to bring the container within 6 hours. (ii) Secondly, that the appellant had informed the Assistant Commissioner Mr. S. K. Biswas about the status throughout and only on his permission, the container was shifted to trailer no. WB-41F 4340 and all throughout the container was kept fully thirdly secured and guarded. The entire operation was carried out in the presence of the officers posted at LCL (CFS), which is a customs licensed Container Freight Station. In the course of enquiry, the fact that the appellant had informed the Assistant Commissioner posted at its CFS as well as LCL (CFS) was not disputed. Sa .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... t is set out herein below; 33. Unloading and loading of goods at approved places only Except with the permission of the proper officer, no imported goods shall be unloaded, and no export goods shall be loaded, at any place other than a place approved under clause (a) of section 8 for the unloading or loading of such goods The shifting was done owing to breakdown of the trailer to a substitute trailer, in presence of the officers posted at LCL (CFS), which is corroborated by the Report of LCL (CFS) dated 12th May 2018 (Page 50 of Appeal Memo). It rendered the charge of not reporting the matter nugatory. The reporting could be done orally which was recorded at LCL (CFS) as well as the appellant's CFS. Since the matter was under SOS, all .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ing the petitioner to carry on its business for a period of six months, considering a previous case, which was neither related to the operation nor part of the charges made in the Show Cause Notice. The earlier case was in fact related to infrastructural matter where the petitioner made an exit gate following the fire brigade compliance, to which customs contended that prior permission from the Customs should also have been obtained. The referred penalty of Rs. 50,000/- had no bearing with the subject case. It was a ground outside the Show Cause Notice. The adjudication order was passed prohibiting the petitioner from doing any business for 180 days which is otherwise very excessive. The petitioner submits that the order passed by the Comm .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates