TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (9) TMI 1130
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....erved that a consignment consisting of one package declared as machine parts weighing 691 kg shipped by M/s. Hartland Technologies Ltd., Hong Kong to M/s. Fern Grove Precision Concepts India, Noida covered under Air way Bill No. 090-4101-5564 IGM No. 207442, Flight No. IT 32 dated 04.12.2011 of King Fisher Airlines and that got entered but was got removed from the Import shed of Air Cargo complex, IGI Airport, New Delhi without filling Bill of Entry. The officers observed that Commissioner of Customs (IMG) New Delhi vide Public Notice No. 10/2006 had appointed M/.s Delhi International Airport Pvt. Ltd. (DIAL), the appellant as custodian of the imported goods with effect from 03.05.2006 until the goods are cleared for home consumption or are....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e is no denial to the fact that duties assigned to M/s. DIAL by Airport Authority. Commissioner of Customs (IMG) New Delhi were being outsourced by M/s. DIAL to M/s. CELEBI, after being duly executing the concessional agreement in the year 2009. It is submitted that since M/s. DIAL has handed over day-today operation of cargo at Delhi Airport to M/s. CELEBI, it was M/s. CELEBI who was supposed to handle, manage cargo handling and storage of Import /export cargo at Delhi Airport in terms of provisions of Handling of Cargo in Customs Area Regulation, 2009 (HCCR, 2009). Hence it can be M/s. CELEBI only to be held responsible for the consignment as heavy as that of 700 Kgs to be removed from the Customs Area without filing the Bill of Entry for....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rt. 3) Permission for outsourcing the functions required to be carried out by M/s. DIAL to M/s. CELEBI was granted in terms of Regulation 6 (2) of Handling of Cargo in Customs Area Regulation, 2009. 4) Lastly, the consignment weighing 691 Kgs as was imported from Hong Kong got removed from the Customs Area without filing of Bill of Entry. 7. Apparent from the above admitted facts M/s. CELEBI is directly responsible for the aforementioned lapse amounting to improper handling of cargo in Customs area. Whether or not M/s. DIAL can simultaneously be held liable for violating relevant provisions need to be looked into. The provisions read as follows: Clearance of imported goods SECTION 45. Restrictions on custody and removal of imported....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ll conveyances and goods in a customs area shall, for the purpose of enforcing the provisions of this Act, be subject to the control of officers of customs. [(2) The imported or export goods may be received, stored, delivered, despatched or otherwise handled in a customs area in such manner as may be prescribed and the responsibilities of persons engaged in the aforesaid activities shall be such as may be prescribed.] 8. Bare perusal of the Act makes it clear that the person who approved by competent officer of Customs to be the Custodian of goods lying in customs area is duty bound for handling of cargo in the Customs area as mentioned in the sub clause (2)(b) of section 45 till the goods are removed from the Customs area. As per sectio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o issue such directions as may be deemed appropriate by M/s. DIAL to remove any defect in designing for upgradation (para 6.1.4 of Concessional agreement). Learned Departmental Representative has also referred to various other similar paragraphs in said agreement. Hence I am of the opinion that it has rightly been held that M/s. CELEBI was never intended to be a Custodian and M/s. DIAL cannot absolve them from the responsibilities and obligations casted upon them in the manner prescribed as per section 145 of Customs Act, 1962 and those as are mentioned in HCCR, 2009. 10. The HCCR regulations define Customs Cargo Service provider to mean any person responsible in receipt, award, delivery, discharge or otherwise handling of imported goods a....