TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (12) TMI 745
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... along with other declared items. Sewing machine needles were declared in the bill of entry with the intent to evade customs duty and consequently, the goods were detained and seized by SIIB officers and handed over to the custodian M/s. Continental Warehousing Corporation (NS) Ltd., Container Freight Station, Kanakkanchathram, Madhavaram, Chennai-600 110 (in short CFS) as provided under Section 45(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Handling of Cargo in Customs Area Regulations, 2009. 1.3 On 25.10.2017, it came to the notice of SIIB that the goods covered under Bill of Entry No. 3325365 dated 21.09.2017 imported by M/s. Rashi Traders have been illegally removed from the CFS on 23.10.2017 in the night at 22.45 hrs. by submitting forged documents to the custodian. In the course of investigation, it was found that the goods were removed out of CFS by U.Magesh and R.Prabhakaran on the instructions of Mr. Hariprabhu and Mr. Thirumalai Thyagarajan of Raj Brothers Shipping Pvt. Ltd. 1.4 Thereafter, voluntary statements of the staff of CFS were recorded, a mahazar was also drawn and thereafter, a show cause notice (SCN) dated 02.07.2018 was issued on the grounds that the appellant....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dhere to the principles of natural justice. • The respondent has predetermined the issue even before issuance of the show cause notice and has proceeded to pass the impugned orders-in-original, which is patently illegal, as no violation especially that of Section 45 (3) of the Customs Act has been committed by it along with alleged violations of provisions of HCCAR, 2009. • The respondent has not only predetermined but has also prejudged the issue as the show cause notice and resultant order-in-original passed by him is stereotyped and repetitive manner without even whispering about the alleged violation of the provision of the law invoked against the appellant. • The respondent has not even explained as to why Section 45 (3) has been invoked, imposition of payment of duty by the appellant for the second time is totally erroneous and liable to be struck down. • The respondent has relied on unconnected, wrong and erroneous facts, and proceeded to pass the impugned order in an automatic and mechanical manner. The appellant has neither violated Section 45 (3) nor the regulations under HCCAR which has been duly explained vide its repl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....covery of customs duty. • The respondent has not denied that the Bill of Entry is cancelled or not accepted by customs. In such an event the Bill of entry filed by the CHA M/s. Rado Impex Logistics Pvt. Ltd., is a valid document. The necessary documents that the CHA was a valid person with KYC have been filed with customs. It has been proved beyond doubt that the appellant had permitted only the said CHA named in the Bill of Entry to file the required documents of liner and customs, which is in the usual practice. • The respondent failed to adjudicate on various pertinent issues and pass a speaking order, especially regarding the role of the liner, whether the original Bill of lading was surrendered or not, if so by whom, whether the delivery order was issued on such surrender, whether the Bill of Entry was filed with liner or not, whether the liners had listed the subject container as long outstanding to the appellant for any alleged detention lost to them, whether detained for non-issuance of delivery order by the liner, whether empty container was returned or not, and what documents were alleged forged, till date. • The respondent failed to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....i-dumping duty of Rs. 2.51 Crores was applicable. The sewing machine needles were found to have been declared in the Bill of Entry with the intention to evade customs duty which was thereafter seized and handed over to the appellant-custodian. Subsequently, i.e, on 25.10.2017 it appears that SIIB had noticed that the above goods were removed by the CFS on 23.10.2017 at 22.45 hrs. and it was found later that the goods were removed out of CFS by one Shri U. Magesh and R. Prabhakaran on the instructions of Mr. Hariprabhu and Mr. Thirumalai Thyagarajan of Raj Brothers Shipping Pvt. Ltd. 5.3 In the Order-in-Original, the Commissioner has found interalia that the custodian had given the delivery of the seized goods by accepting cash of Rs. 1,05,000/-, without generating any invoice for the same and that the CHA who came and took delivery did not provide its GST Number. Further, he has also observed, upon looking into the records, that the subject container was illegally removed at midnight of 23.10.2017 by accepting cash payment. The authority has also found from the cash register of the custodian that the cash was received on 27.10.2017 and the computerized invoice was generated by t....