Cost recovery charge demand and Regulation 12(8) penalty quashed for lack of authority u/regs 5(2), 6(1)(o)

CESTAT allowed the appeal and set aside the Principal Commissioner's order directing recovery of outstanding cost recovery charges and imposing penalty under the Handling of Cargo in Customs Areas Regulations, 2009. Relying on its earlier decision in a similar matter, CESTAT held that the Commissioner had no authority under Regulations 5(2) and 6(1)(o) to order recovery of cost recovery charges. Consequently, as the substantive demand itself was unsustainable, there was no contravention of the 2009 Regulations to attract penalty under Regulation 12(8). Both the demand for cost recovery charges and the penalty were quashed, and the appellant's remaining contentions were not examined.

---

---

1. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED

1.1 Whether cost recovery charges could be validly demanded and recovered from the appellant under the Handling of Cargo in Customs Areas Regulations, 2009, read with the applicable circulars and public notice, in view of judicial pronouncements declaring the Regulations ultra vires the Customs Act, 1962.

1.2 Whether penalty under Regulation 12(8) of the Handling of Cargo in Customs Areas Regulations, 2009 could be sustained when the levy and recovery of cost recovery charges under the said Regulations is not legally sustainable.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1 - Validity of demand and recovery of cost recovery charges under the 2009 Regulations

Legal framework (as discussed)

2.1 The impugned order confirmed demand of cost recovery charges by relying on condition (iii) of a public notice, a Board circular of 1995, and Regulations 5(2) and 6(1)(o) of the Handling of Cargo in Customs Areas Regulations, 2009, and also ordered recovery with interest.

2.2 The Tribunal referred to the judgment of a High Court which examined Sections 141 and 157 of the Customs Act, 1962 and held that there is no express statutory provision authorising levy or recovery of cost recovery charges (being salaries of customs officers posted at custodians' premises) through the 2009 Regulations, and therefore declared the 2009 Regulations ultra vires the Customs Act.

2.3 The Tribunal further referred to its own Division Bench decisions which, following the said High Court judgment, had held that Regulation 5(2) of the 2009 Regulations is ultra vires and that cost recovery charges could not be recovered under those Regulations; and that, even prior to the 2009 Regulations, recovery based only on circulars/administrative instructions had no statutory backing.

Interpretation and reasoning

2.4 The Tribunal noted that the High Court had specifically concluded that, in the absence of any special statutory authorisation in Sections 141 or 157, the department had no authority to impose or recover cost recovery charges by means of the 2009 Regulations, rendering them ultra vires.

2.5 The Tribunal observed that, in earlier appeals involving similar demands under Regulation 5(2) of the 2009 Regulations, it had already followed this High Court view and set aside cost recovery demands, and treated that High Court decision as binding judicial authority.

2.6 Applying the same reasoning, the Tribunal held that, once the Regulations themselves are ultra vires, directions in the impugned order to pay cost recovery charges with interest, purportedly under Regulation 5(2), Regulation 6(1)(o), the Board circular and the public notice, cannot be sustained in law.

Conclusions

2.7 The Tribunal concluded that there is no valid legal authority to levy and recover cost recovery charges under the 2009 Regulations, and therefore the demand and recovery ordered in the impugned order are unsustainable and liable to be set aside.

Issue 2 - Sustainability of penalty under Regulation 12(8) of the 2009 Regulations

Legal framework (as discussed)

2.8 The impugned order imposed penalty on the appellant under Regulation 12(8) of the Handling of Cargo in Customs Areas Regulations, 2009, on the ground that the appellant had failed to fulfil its obligation to pay cost recovery charges in terms of Regulations 5(2) and 6(1)(o) and the public notice condition.

Interpretation and reasoning

2.9 The Tribunal recalled its earlier reasoning (in the prior round of litigation) that penalty under Regulation 12(8) presupposes a contravention or failure to comply with a validly enforceable obligation created by the Regulations.

2.10 Since, following the binding High Court judgment and subsequent Tribunal decisions, the provisions of the 2009 Regulations relied upon for levy and recovery of cost recovery charges are ultra vires and cannot validly found such a demand, there can be no legally sustainable "contravention" in not paying those charges.

2.11 Consequently, the foundation for invoking Regulation 12(8) disappears once the demand of cost recovery charges under the 2009 Regulations is held to be without authority of law.

Conclusions

2.12 The Tribunal held that, as the direction to pay cost recovery charges cannot be sustained, the imposition of penalty under Regulation 12(8) is also unsustainable and must be set aside.

Overall disposition

2.13 On the above grounds, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order in toto, including the demand of cost recovery charges, interest, and penalty, and allowed the appeal. It found it unnecessary to examine the appellant's remaining contentions regarding exemptions/waivers, calculations, apportionment, transport allowance, or absence of specific recovery machinery.

---