Customs cargo service provider liable for duty on pilfered goods under Section 45, cannot shift responsibility to security

Delhi HC dismissed appeal by customs cargo service provider challenging duty and penalty imposition under Section 45 of Customs Act, 1962 for pilfered goods. Court held that as custodian of imported goods in customs area, appellant bore responsibility for safe custody and could not shift liability to CISF security. Section 45(3) makes custodian liable for duty on goods pilfered while in custody. Appellant's contention of non-participation in Panchnama and CISF's security responsibility rejected. Appeal dismissed as lacking substantial legal question.

---

---

Issues:
1. Condonation of delay in filing the appeal.
2. Appeal against the final order of Customs Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) regarding duty and penalty imposition.
3. Questions raised for consideration in the appeal.

Analysis:
1. The judgment begins by addressing the delay in filing the appeal, where a delay of 11 days was condoned after considering the disclosures made, and the application was disposed of accordingly.

2. The appeal was filed against the final order of CESTAT, which affirmed the imposition of duty and penalty on the appellant under Section 45 of the Customs Act, 1962, read with Regulation 6 of Handling of Cargo in Customs Area Regulations, 2009. The facts of the case involved the importation of goods declared as "steep glass bowl" and "deep cut glass bowl," but upon inspection, it was found that there were additional branded products in the container, leading to duty imposition and penalty.

3. The appellant posed several questions for consideration, including the liability for duty payment, reliance on the panchnama, custodian's responsibility, consideration of evidence by the Appellate Tribunal, valuation of goods, and procedural aspects related to the preparation of panchnamas and imposition of penalties. The judgment extensively analyzed the legal provisions under Section 45 of the Customs Act and the responsibilities of a Customs Cargo Service Provider, concluding that the appellant, as the custodian of the imported goods, was liable for the pilferage and consequent duty payment and penalty.

4. The court rejected the appellant's contentions, stating that the appellant's responsibility for safe custody of the goods could not be shifted to others, such as the CISF, and that the appellant was rightfully held liable for the duty and penalty. The judgment highlighted the specific provisions of the Customs Act and HCCAR, emphasizing the custodian's obligations and liabilities in such cases.

5. The judgment concluded by affirming the decision of CESTAT, stating that the appeal did not raise any substantial question of law, and therefore, the appeal was dismissed for lack of merit based on the legal analysis and findings presented in the judgment.

6. Overall, the judgment provided a detailed analysis of the legal provisions, factual background, and the appellant's contentions, leading to the dismissal of the appeal based on the custodian's liability for the pilferage of imported goods and the consequent duty and penalty obligations under the Customs Act and related regulations.

---