2013 (4) TMI 308

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....housed or transported. Under Sec. 45(1) of the Customs Act, 1962, the Commissioner of Customs has been empowered to appoint a Custodian for a Customs area, where the imported goods can be unloaded and kept in the custody of such custodian till they are cleared for home consumption or warehoused or transshipped. In exercising the power, the Commissioner of customs, JNPT issued Notification No.16/2005 dated 31.12.2005 notifying the JNPT and the appellants to be the Custodian and Co-Custodian respectively of the imported goods received at the CFS, JNPT until the goods are cleared for home consumption or warehoused or transshipped in accordance with the provisions of Chapter VIII of the Customs Act, 1952. In 2009, Handling of Cargo in Customs A....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... appellants with the approval of the Government under Sec.42(3) of the MPT Act and as a CFS operator, the appellants are required to comply with all the Customs formalities, it is requested to consider the application of the appellants forwarded through JNPT for approval /renewal of Customs Cargo Service Provider under the Handling of Cargo in Customs Area Regulations 2009. Therefore, in view of the above customs formalities like submission of bond are required to be complied by the appellants, after receiving the reply from JNPT, the impugned order has been passed. The appellants are challenging the said order before us. 2. Shri D.B.Shroff, ld. Counsel for the appellants appeared before us and submitted that as per the Notification No.16/....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....on 5(3) of the said Regulations. Therefore, the impugned order is to be set aside. 3. On the other hand, the ld. A.R. reiterated the impugned order and submitted that as the appellants were appointed as co-custodian as per Notification No.16/2005, therefore, they are still co-custodian and they are required to comply with the Condition No.5(3) of the said Regulations. Therefore, the impugned order is to be upheld. 4. Heard both sides. After considering the submissions made, we come to the conclusion that it is no doubt that the appellants were registered as co-custodian as per the Notification No.16/2005 dated 30.12.2005 but by Notification No.26/09-Cus (NT) dated 17.3.2009, Handling of Cargo in Customs Areas Regulations, 2009 came into e....