2012 (9) TMI 177

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Act which the appellant has contravened, is to be modified as the adjudicating Commissioner in paragraph 13 of his order has clearly mentioned that the appellant has contravened para-16 of CBEC Circular No.128/95-Cus. dt. 14.12.95. Therefore, there is a mistake committed by this Tribunal which is apparent on record. Therefore, the stay order be modified.   2. Heard the learned SDR and considered his submissions.   3. As per Section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962, penalty can be imposed on any person who contravenes any provision of this Act or abets any such contravention or who fails to comply with any provision of this Act. But in the impugned order, the adjudicating Commissioner has not mentioned which provision of the Act ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....age charges from the Importers/CHA s for whose benefit CFS type of institutions are envisaged, established and operated enhancing their transaction cost by forcing them to suffer hardships and leading them to complain to the customs Department as mentioned above. I also hold that such an arrangement of providing exclusive area inside the CFS premises to aforesaid NVOCCs/Cargo Consolidators without the permission of Commissioner of Customs and M/s.CWC Virugambakkam have contravened the para 16 of CBEC Circular 128/95 CUS dated14.12.95. I therefore hold that M/s.CWC (Virugambakkam) is liable to penal action in terms of Section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962.   Thereafter, he passed the following order :-   (i) I direct M/s.CWC V....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ions of Regulation 6 (l) (q), 6(2) and 6(3) of the Handling of Cargo in Customs Area Regulations, 2009. Therefore, the adjudicating authority has rightly imposed the penalty under Section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962.   7. On a bare reading of the Section 45 (2) (b), there is no restriction on the appellants not to sublet the premises. The only restriction is that the appellants shall not permit the goods to be removed from the Customs area without the permission of the proper officer. There is no allegation against the appellants that they have removed the goods without the permission of the proper officer. Therefore, they have not violated the provisions of Section 45 (2) (b) as alleged in the impugned order. There is no finding o....