TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (6) TMI 997
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in the petitioner's Inland Container Depot (ICD), Hosur. The case of the petitioner appears to be that the petitioner was appointed as a Customs Cargo Service Provider for its ICD in Hosur in the year 2014. They commenced its commercial operations in 2015. Being governed by the provisions of the Handling of Cargo in Customs Area Regulation 2009, the petitioner was required to bear the cost borne by the Customs, Department towards the salary payable to the Customs Officer posted in the aforesaid ICD of the petitioner on cost recovery basis. 3. It is the specific case of the petitioner that after the petitioner paid the initial amount of Rs.43,96,401/- for the period between April 2017 and March 2019 after adjusting the amount of Rs.21,45,330/- and further sum of Rs. 3,62,234/- for a period between April 2019 and August 2019. It is submitted that the petitioner had filed an application for grant of waiver from the Cost Recovery Charges in terms of Circular dated 12.09.2005 inasmuch as the petitioner has been handling more than 7,200 TEUs containers at ICD, Hosur per annum from September 2017 onwards. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the Department h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....number of imports or exports containers handled, customs declaration filed for export or import etc. Waiver in respect of Cost Recovery Charges at ICD can be considered only as per the norms laid down in its circular, dated 25.06.2015, bearing reference F.No.434/17/2004 -customs IV. It is submitted that since the petitioner fails to pay the arrears, question of granting waiver does not arise. 9. The learned counsel for the respondents further submits that when the Superintendent, Inspector and Head Havildar were posted permanently and were working for the petitioner and they have not been assigned any other job other than the work for the petitioner at ICD, therefore the claim of the petitioner were not posted exclusively for the petitioner is not correct. It is submitted that for the rank of Assistant Commissioner only 33% of the cost recovery charges were demanded since the work undertaken for the petitioner was on additional charge basis. The learned counsel for the respondents submits that required man power were posted at the request of the petitioner and therefore the petitioner cannot claim for waiver. 10. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the Customs Department to recover the entire amount separately from the Container Freight Stations(CFS) or Internal Container Depots(ICD). This was contrary to the statutory scheme of the Customs Act, 1962 and Constitution of India. 64.Container Freight Stations(CFS) or Internal Container Depots(ICD) were allowed to be set up with the view to ease the congestions and the delay at the ports which were traditionally the custom area where the assessments were to be carried out. 65.Earlier, the imported goods had to be first assessed and thereafter cleared from such port of import after their import either into the Domestic Tariff Area or for being warehoused by filing in bond bill of entry. There was no question of CRC being recovered by Department from the AIR Port Authority of India or Port Trust merely because the Customs also had its officers stationed there. 66.It is further noticed that Handling Of Cargo In Customs Area Regulations, 2009 contemplates payment of costs towards the cost of customs officers posted at the customs area on Cost Recovery Basis on such rates and in such manner unless specifically exempted by an order of the Government of India....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ions,2009. It has to be also underlined that there is no direct provision under the Handling of Cargo in Customs Areas Regulations,2009 for granting waiver from payment of Cost Recovery Charges payable by an approved "Customs Cargo Service Provider". Power to grant such waiver/exemption has been exercised right from 1997 through circular and the practice has been continued by issuing circulars by the Central Board of Excise and Customs even after the above Regulation came into force. 74.These, circulars which have been issued at best can be said to have been issued in aid of Regulation 7 of the Handling of Cargo in Customs Areas Regulations,2009 as per which powers have been vested with the Commissioner of customs to relax a "Customs Cargo Service Provider" from operation of Regulation 5. There is no other provisions under which these circulars/clarification granting exemption can be legitimized. 75.There is no connect between the provisions of the above Regulation as it stands today and the practice that is being followed by the Department for levying and exempting a Customs Cargo Service Providers from payment of Cost Recovery Charges. Therefore, while disposing....