TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>CCSP faces double penalties for red sanders theft worth Rs 4.44 crore under Regulation 12(8) and Section 117</h1> <h3>Container Corporation of India Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Customs, Nhava Sheva</h3> Container Corporation of India Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Customs, Nhava Sheva - TMI 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 GoodsThe 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, 1962The 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 PenaltiesThe 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.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
