Levy of penalty on customs cargo service provider for pilferage and enforcement of indemnity obligation upheld against the provider

Levy of penalties on a customs cargo service provider arises from its contractual and regulatory indemnity obligations and statutory contraventions. Regulation 5(6) creates an undertaking requiring the CFS to indemnify the Commissioner for loss or damage to imported or export goods caused by accident, deterioration, destruction or any other unnatural cause, making the CFS liable for stolen/pilfered goods; indemnity obligation thus applies and recovery of value is permissible. Section 117 is a residual penal provision for contraventions where no express penalty exists, and the Commissioner was justified in imposing a penalty under Section 117; Regulation 12(8) independently permits penalty for breach of the Regulations, and both penalties were upheld.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of Regulation 5(6) of the Handling of Cargo in Customs Area Regulations, 2009 for recovery of the value of lost goods.
2. Imposition of penalty under Regulation 12(8) of the Handling of Cargo in Customs Area Regulations, 2009.
3. Imposition of penalty under Section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962.
4. Simultaneous imposition of penalties under Regulation 12(8) of the Handling of Cargo in Customs Area Regulations, 2009, and Section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962 for the same contravention.

Summary:

Issue 1: Applicability of Regulation 5(6) for Recovery of Lost Goods
The court examined whether Regulation 5(6) of the Handling of Cargo in Customs Area Regulations, 2009, entitles the Respondent to recover the value of the lost goods from the Appellant. The appellant contended that the regulation does not cover situations where goods are pilfered or stolen. However, the court noted that Regulation 5(6) mandates the Customs Cargo Service Provider (CCSP) to indemnify the Commissioner of Customs for any loss suffered on imported or export goods due to unnatural causes, including theft or pilferage, during their storage. The court held that the appellant, being bound by this regulation, is liable to indemnify the Commissioner for the loss of goods valued at Rs. 4,44,32,500/-.

Issue 2: Imposition of Penalty under Regulation 12(8)
The court reviewed the imposition of a penalty of Rs. 50,000/- under Regulation 12(8) of the Handling of Cargo in Customs Area Regulations, 2009. The regulation stipulates that any contravention of its provisions by the CCSP attracts a penalty. Given the appellant's failure to ensure the safety and security of the goods, the court upheld the penalty, noting clear contraventions of Regulation 5 and Regulation 6.

Issue 3: Imposition of Penalty under Section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962
The court considered the imposition of a penalty of Rs. 4,00,000/- under Section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962, which applies to contraventions of the Act where no specific penalty is provided. The court found that the appellant's actions constituted a breach of the Customs Act, justifying the penalty.

Issue 4: Simultaneous Imposition of Penalties
The appellant argued against the simultaneous imposition of penalties under Regulation 12(8) and Section 117. The court clarified that Section 117 is an independent provision addressing contraventions of the Customs Act, while Regulation 12(8) pertains specifically to breaches of the Handling of Cargo in Customs Area Regulations. Thus, both penalties were found to be justified and not mutually exclusive.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the appeal, affirming the appellant's liability to indemnify the Commissioner for the loss of goods and upholding the penalties imposed under both Regulation 12(8) and Section 117. The interim application was also disposed of accordingly.

---