TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (3) TMI 286
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the appellant for imposition of penalty. Notice also sought to impose penalty under Section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962. The lower authorities have imposed the penalties. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellants are before Tribunal. 2. Learned Counsel for the appellant argued that four different charges of contravention of provisions of Regulations have been made and penalty of Rs. 50,000/- for each count has been imposed on them. 2.1 The first charge was that the appellant provided unauthorized access to Shri Deepak D Shejpal inside CFS in contravention of regulations 5(1)(m) of HCCAR, 2009. It was argued by the appellant that Shri Deepak Shejpal entered the CFS after making necessary entry in the Register. The appellant could not p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l transporter of CFS as Royal Trade Line. 2.5 Section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962 has been wrongly invoked to impose penalty as no violation under Rule 117 has been identified in proceedings by the lower authorities. 3. Learned AR also relied on the impugned order. 4. I have gone through the rival submissions. I find that in this case certain steel material, which brought in the CFS for export was later substituted with Sandalwood. The said cargo was examined when it was in CFS and thereafter it was the responsibility of the CFS to transfer the same safely to the port. However, during transfer from the CFS to Port, the said cargo was substituted with prohibited cargo. The act and omission of CFS need to be examined in this background of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....evidence to corroborate this claim. 4.1 The second violation relates to regulations 6(1)(i). The said regulation requires the appellant to be responsible for safety and security of export cargo, while it is in their custody. The charge made is that the appellant did not de-stuff the cargo for examination by the customs officer. Just because examination was done without de-stuffing, it cannot be said that the appellant had compromised to the cargo in its custody. It is pointed out that the same was examined by the customs officer and it if was violation of any regulation then the customs officer, who examined the goods is equally responsible for the same. 4.2 The next charges confirmed by the impugned order is failure to ensure secured tra....