TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (7) TMI 495
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., 1962, were allowed to be redeemed under section 125 of Customs Act, 1962 and in the hands of the licencee, to boot, for being in the wrong place at the wrong time; the remains of the dispute are about penalties imposed under section 117 of Customs Act, 1962 from customs authorities purportedly being in right place at the right time. The minutiae of the detriments under challenge are not of substance; for, if the order [ order-in-original no.19/24-25/COMMR/NS-I/Bond(I)/CAC/ JNCH dated 17th April 2024 ] of Commissioner of Customs (NS-I), Nhava Sheva had, indeed, invoked the provisions of Customs Act, 1962 in proper empowerment, only mitigating circumstances must need be ascertained in the interest of proportionately. 2. The proceedings wer....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... value - befalls both exchequer and owner and, while the latter has access to civil action against the warehouse keeper, revenue interests are assured not only by the bond executed by importer as prescribed in section 59 of Customs Act, 1962 that may be enforced for improper removal but also doubly so from the prescription in section 73A of Customs Act, 1962 fastening responsibility on warehouse licencee for improper removal. It is in these circumstances of obligation to pay fine and penalties that Learned Counsel for appellant contended that there was no illicit removal as the goods are accounted for and that proceedings itself was unnecessary as the placement of goods was effected with permission of customs officials. Learned Authorized R....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f duty in the fullness of time precluded any action against the goods. 5. The impugned goods were either available at the premises of the appellant or, having been duly cleared and not bearing taint of duty liability or prohibition then or removed to another warehouse, beyond the scope of responsibility of the appellant but were, nonetheless, subjected to confiscation under section 111(j) of Customs Act, 1962 and the appellant subjected to penalty under section 112 of Customs Act, 1962 for acts of omission or commission rendering the goods liable to such consequence. It is on record that, as on date of confiscation, the goods were either yet in the warehouse, had been cleared or no longer in the custodianship of the appellant and that all ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....re the commercial interests of both the appellant and the importer in safeguarding the goods, in their custody or belonging to them respectively, merely to jeopardize revenue (and without actually being so) that is only of peripheral significance to the commercial stakes in entirety. Surely, this is less than realistic comprehension of affairs that does not sit well with the seniority and experience of the adjudicating authority. There has been patent lack of responsible adjudication in concluding that the goods had been removed from the warehouse without sequencing the events occurring till the goods were discovered where they were not to be. There is no less of responsibility deficit in not taking cognizance of the final disposition of th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ncipal Commissioner of Customs (General) [final order [ n. A/86761/2023 dated 4th October 2023 ] disposing off appeal [ customs appeal no. 86442/2021 ] against order [ order-in-original CAO no. 13/CAC/PCC(G)/PS/CBS/Adj. dated 28th May 2021 ] of Commissioner of Customs (General), Mumbai Zone - I] and in Arun Raigaonkar v. Collector of Customs [1988 taxman.com 576 (CEGAT -MUMBAI)]. 8. It was alleged that appellant failed to keep the goods in easily accessible location by improper stacking in non-bonded area, failed to provide 'solvency certificate' for four years, did not provide adequate camera coverage, failed to provide proper signage and failed to provide 'digital signatures' which ran contrary to paragraph (iii), (vii), (xvi (b)), (xvi ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aid contraventions came to the knowledge of the department only when the verification was taken up by the Department and those discrepancies would not have been noticed but for the above verification. Therefore, I am convinced that the above acts of omissions, commissions and inactions on the part of the Licensee justify the imposition of the penalties mentioned above for each of the violations.' it appears to us that, in a routine mode, the licencing-Commissioner fell back on a shibboleth usually resorted to for invoking the extended period of limitation without pausing to consider the grand tradition of public warehouse in the scheme of customs duty collection. He appears not to have given any thought to evolution of custodianship in the....