TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (6) TMI 779
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ommissioner, Customs House Mundra for violation of Regulation 10(1)(l) and 10(1)(m) of the Sea Cargo Manifest and Transhipment Regulations, 2018 (in short SCMTR) and it was proposed to revoke their authorised carrier registration under Regulation 11 and 12 of the SCMTR, 2018 besides imposition of penalty in terms of Regulation 13 of the said Regulations. 1.1 After receipt of the representation from the appellant, the Learned adjudicating authority decided the show cause notice vide impugned order dated 25.03.2025 vide which he revoked authorised carrier registration of the appellant in the jurisdiction of Mundra Customs with effect from 08.04.2025. The appellant was asked to handover import/export containers laden with goods or empty con....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed on 13.09.2024. * After detailed examination and on finding that the goods were in conformity with the declarations, NOC was issued by SIIB on 25.09.2024. * As per the appellant, they had in their possession the documents issued by the Dubai Customs for very same consignments indicating gross under valuation of the imported goods as declared before Indian Customs. In spite of such discrepancies, NOC was given by SIIB which raises serious concerns about objectivity and intent of the proceeding. * They received a letter dated 30.09.2024 from SIIB, Mundra Customs followed by another communication dated 06.11.2024, directing not to charge any rent or demurrage in respect of aforesaid consignments. The letter dated 3....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 3. During arguments, learned Advocate on behalf of the appellant highlighted the points taken in their appeals and drew the attention of the Bench towards relevant provisions of SCMTR, 2018. He stressed that as per these regulations, they have agreed to waive detention charges for upto 60 days and therefore, the action taken by the Customs against them, is disproportionate and tantamounts to closer of their business at Mundra. He also explained calculation of number of days and charges payable thereon by the importers. In his support, he cited two case laws namely decision of Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of G. K. International Vs. Pr. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai- 2022 (1) Centa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and 10(1)(m) of the SCMTR, 2018. The said provisions are reproduced as under: - "10(1)(l) not demand any container detention charges for the containers laden with the goods detained by customs for purpose of verifying the entries made under section 46 or section 50 of the Act, if the entries are found to be correct. Provided that the authorised carrier may demand, container detention charges for the period, commencing after expiry of sixty days. 10(1)(m) abide by all the provisions of the Act and the rules, regulations, notifications and orders issued there under." 5.1 We find that prior to issue of show cause notice to the appellant, an inquiry was conducted by the Assistant Commissioner regarding violations o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 5.2 We have also gone through the response given by the appellant through emails. Initially, they took a position that they will waive detention charges only for 3 days i.e. detention period by the SIIB. Vide email dated 11.11.2024, they expressed readiness for waiver of detention charges from 12.09.2024 to 25.09.2024 (i.e. period for which SIIB put hold on the containers). 5.3. From the provisions of relevant Regulation of SCMTR, 2018, we find that Regulation 10(1)(l) clearly stipulates that an authorised carrier shall not demand any container detention charges for the container laden with goods detained by customs for the purpose of verifying the entries made under Section 46 or 50 of the Act, if the entries are found to be correct. P....