AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (12) TMI 299
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ta - 700 091[hereinafter referred to as "the Appellant"] against the Order-in-Original No. 01-Cus/Commr/Tech/2022-23 dated 23.08. 2022 passed by the Principal Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), Patna wherein the Ld. Principal Commissioner has confirmed the allegations contained in the Show Cause Notice and cancelled the public bonded warehouse licence issued to the Appellant, under Section 58B(1) of the Customs Act, 1962, for alleged contravention of the provisions of the Act and the said Regulations as specified and imposed a penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- upon the appellant under Section 117 of the Act read with Regulation 12 of the said Regulations. Aggrieved against the cancellation of the Warehousing License issued to them, the appellant....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....021 and 01.12.2021. The Appellant paid the duty involved in the stolen goods amounting to Rs.1,60,996/-. 5. On 2nd June, 2022, a Show Cause Notice was issued to the Appellant by the Principal Commissioner of Customs proposing to cancel the warehouse licence under Section 58B(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 for the alleged contravention of the provisions of Section 57 and 73A of the Act read with Regulations 3,4, 5(2), 7(h) and 11 of the said Regulations. Penalty was also proposed to be imposed under the said Act and Regulations. 5.1. The said Notice was adjudicated and the warehouse licence issued to the Appellant was cancelled vide the impugned order dated 23.08.2022. 5.2. The Appellant has filed the present appeal against the cancellation ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the said Regulations as well as the condition of issue of the licence. 6.2. The Appellant contends that the Public Warehouse Licensing Regulations, 2016 does not empower the Board to issue any Circular to regularize the functioning of the warehouses; the said Circular No. 25/2016-Cus. dated 08th June, 2016 was issued mainly for administrative and procedural purposes. The impugned order has cited the said Circular to allege contravention of the provisions of the said Regulations on account of non-provision of audit trail in the computerized system. Accordingly, the Appellant contends that the Show Cause Notice has traversed beyond the statutory provisions under which the License was issued. 6.3. The appellant further submits that despite ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....adequate. The Appellant also submits that there is no truth in the finding in the impugned order that the warehouse keeper appointed by them did not have any prior experience in warehousing operation and accordingly there was violation of Regulation 3(1) of the said Regulations. As they were operating with minimum staff during COVID pandemic and the operations in the warehouse were very few, the appellant contends that the officers have no occasion to assess the experience of the warehouse keeper appointed by them. Accordingly, the appellant submits that the finding in the impugned order on this count is erroneous and untenable. 6.5 In this regard, the Appellant placed their reliance on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Shiv Prob....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e warehouse only with a skeleton workforce and this had adversely affected the functioning of their warehouse. 9.1. We observe that the main ground on which the warehousing licence issued to the Appellant was revoked is that the feature of audit trail was not incorporated in the computerized system operated by the Appellant in the warehouse. The Ld. Principal Commissioner of Customs has cited the Circular No. 25/2016-Cus. dated 08th June, 2016 and alleged contravention of the provisions of the said Regulations on account of non-provision of audit trail in the computerized system. We observe that the Circular was issued mainly for administrative and procedural purposes. We agree with the observations of the Ld. Principal Commissioner that i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Appellant has already paid the duty involved in respect of the stolen goods. We agree with the finding of the Ld. Principal Commissioner that adequate security measures are essential for operation of the warehouse. However, we observe that one isolated incident of theft cannot be a reason to come to the conclusion that the security measures in the warehouse were not adequate. The Department can advise the License-holder to increase the security and to provide adequate staff for security and maintenance of the warehouse. 9.3. We also find that the Ld. Principal Commissioner has given a finding that the warehouse keeper appointed by them did not have any prior experience in warehousing operations and accordingly there was violation of Regul....