Tribunal overturns penalty for CFS operator due to customs violation technicality and lack of consistency

The Tribunal allowed the appeal of a Container Freight Station (CFS) operator penalized for customs regulation violations related to mis-declaration and smuggling of goods. The penalty of Rs. 50,000 was set aside as the Tribunal found that the requirement to refer to ICEGATE was not in place at the time of the incident, and the penalty was not justified due to procedural improvements introduced later. The Tribunal noted the lack of penal or disciplinary actions against other CFSs in similar situations, leading to the decision to accept the appeal and provide consequential relief.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Mis-declaration and smuggling of goods.
2. Compliance with Handling of Cargo in Customs Area Regulations (HCCAR), 2009.
3. Imposition of penalty on the appellant.

Summary:

The present appeal concerns the appellant, a Container Freight Station (CFS) operator, who was penalized for alleged violations of customs regulations. The issues involved include the mis-declaration and smuggling of goods, compliance with Handling of Cargo in Customs Area Regulations (HCCAR), 2009, and the imposition of a penalty on the appellant.

Mis-declaration and Smuggling of Goods:

On the basis of intelligence gathered by the Special Intelligence and Investigation Branch (SIIB), it was discovered that two containers stuffed with cosmetics were mis-declared as baby diapers and removed clandestinely from Ashutosh CFS, Mundra. The investigation revealed that the containers were imported in the name of two companies and that the documents used for clearance, including Bills of Entry, were found to be bogus. Detailed examinations confirmed the mis-declaration, and the goods were seized under Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962, as they were liable for confiscation under Section 111(e), (f), (i) of the Customs Act, 1962.

Compliance with HCCAR, 2009:

The investigation highlighted that the staff of Ashutosh CFS failed to follow the prescribed procedure as per Public Notice No. 24/2007 and HCCAR, 2009. Despite noticing discrepancies in the documents, the staff allowed the clearance of goods, resulting in significant revenue loss. It was found that similar clearances had occurred on 14 previous occasions. The Principal Commissioner of Customs placed the appointment of Ashutosh CFS under suspension, which was later revoked. However, the Deputy Commissioner reported gross negligence on the part of the CFS staff.

Imposition of Penalty:

The Show Cause Notice issued under Regulation 6 of HCCAR, 2009, led to the imposition of a penalty of Rs. 50,000 on the appellant. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the penalty, stating that the CFS failed to adhere to the conditions prescribed in Regulation 6(1) of HCCAR, 2009. The appellant argued that the requirement of verification from ICEGATE came into existence only after the incident and that they had followed all requirements of the 2007 Public Notice. The appellant also cited a precedent where a similar case did not lead to penalties due to the lack of specific mention of the violated sub-clause of the regulation.

Tribunal's Decision:

The Tribunal found that there was no requirement in the 2007 Public Notice for employees to refer to ICEGATE prior to the 2015 Public Notice. The Tribunal also noted that the department had not issued penal or disciplinary notices to other CFSs involved in similar transactions. The Tribunal concluded that the imposition of the penalty on the appellant was not justified, as the additional condition imposed by the 2015 Public Notice was a procedural improvement. Therefore, the appeal was accepted, and the penalty of Rs. 50,000 was set aside with consequential relief.

The appeal was allowed, and the order was pronounced in the open court on 21.09.2023.

---