Tribunal sets aside demand for cost recovery charges, grants exemption based on Ministry letters.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the adjudicating authority's order confirming a demand for cost recovery charges against the appellant. It concluded that the appellant was entitled to exemption from such charges based on Ministry letters and the encadrement of posts, emphasizing that the legal provisions of HCCAR, 2009, did not support the recovery of unpaid charges as pursued by the authority. The decision was pronounced on 1.2.2019.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Confirmation of demand for cost recovery charges.
2. Applicability of Handling of Cargo in Customs Areas Regulations (HCCAR), 2009.
3. Exemption from cost recovery charges.
4. Legal provisions for recovery of unpaid cost recovery charges.
5. Interpretation of previous judgments and legal principles.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Confirmation of Demand for Cost Recovery Charges:
The appeal arises from the Order-in-Original No. 02/2018, which confirmed a demand of Rs. 4,35,27,946/- against the appellant along with a penalty of Rs. 5,000/- under Regulation 12(8) of HCCAR, 2009. The appellant was appointed as custodian of ICD, Jodhpur, subject to conditions including payment of cost recovery charges for Custom officers posted at ICD. The appellant did not meet the benchmark performance for the year 2009-2010, leading to the demand for cost recovery charges, which was confirmed by the adjudicating authority.

2. Applicability of Handling of Cargo in Customs Areas Regulations (HCCAR), 2009:
The appellant contended that the cost recovery charges should not be applicable post-2009 due to the regularization and encadrement of posts by CBEC. The appellant argued that the HCCAR, 2009, does not provide for recovery of unpaid cost recovery charges, only for revocation or suspension of custodianship.

3. Exemption from Cost Recovery Charges:
The appellant claimed exemption based on letters dated 23.5.2006 and 18.2.2009, which indicated regularization of posts and exemption from cost recovery charges. The appellant argued that once the posts were encadred, there was no requirement to pay cost recovery charges. The adjudicating authority, however, did not consider these exemptions and confirmed the demand.

4. Legal Provisions for Recovery of Unpaid Cost Recovery Charges:
The Tribunal examined Regulations 5(2), 6(1)(o), and 12 of HCCAR, 2009. Regulation 5(2) and 6(1)(o) mandate the custodian to bear the cost of Customs officers unless exempted by the Ministry of Finance. Regulation 12 outlines the procedure for suspension or revocation of approval but does not provide for the recovery of unpaid charges. The Tribunal found that the adjudicating authority erred in confirming the demand without proper legal basis under HCCAR, 2009.

5. Interpretation of Previous Judgments and Legal Principles:
The appellant cited various case laws to argue that the previous CESTAT order was per incurium and sub silento, as it did not consider the legal provisions and exemptions. The Tribunal agreed, noting that the previous order did not examine the depth of relevant legal provisions and communications regarding exemptions. The Tribunal also referred to the Gujarat High Court's decision in Adani Ports, which supported the appellant's claim for exemption from the date of application.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal concluded that the appellant is entitled to exemption from cost recovery charges based on the Ministry's letters and the encadrement of posts. The adjudicating authority's order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed. The Tribunal emphasized that the legal provisions of HCCAR, 2009, do not support the recovery of unpaid cost recovery charges in the manner pursued by the adjudicating authority. The decision was pronounced in court on 1.2.2019.

---