2026 (2) TMI 48

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....egulation 10 of Handling of Cargo in Customs Areas Regulation (HCCAR), 2009. The approval, renewed from time to time till the last on 10th November 2022, is presently valid till 4th October 2032. Additional permission authorizing 'hazardous cargo' to be handled was issued on 14th July 2023 and valid for two years subject to consent from Maharashtra Pollution Control Board which is, on record, as up to 30th September 2032. 2. The genesis of the present dispute, over suspension of operations for a period of 15 days under regulation 11 of Handling of Cargo in Customs Areas Regulation (HCCAR), 2009 besides imposition of penalty of Rs. 50,000 under regulation 12 therein besides penalty of Rs. 4,00,000 under section 117 of Customs Act, 1962 vi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....117 of Customs Act, 1962.' 3. It is seen from the impugned order that the enquiry authority held that '5.13 In view of the above, the IMPUGNED ORDER found that charges against CCSP under clauses (i) and (q) OF Regulation 6(1) of HCCAR, 2009, read with Section 141(2) of Customs Act, 1962 is conclusively proved against CCSP M/s Vaishno Logistics Yard (a Division of M/s Kestrel Aviation Pvt Ltd).' 4. Notwithstanding the limited finding of the enquiry authority, the adjudicating authority was not inclined to discharge them from consequence of contravention of regulation 5 and proceeded to render its own finding which, one would presume, enabled recourse to the detriments. The impugned order has also imposed penalty under section ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ation 5 of the said Regulations cannot be held to be in conformity with the principles of natural justice. 8. The appellant had taken all diligent steps to defuse the fire and there is no allegation of involvement of the appellant either in the outbreak for damages thereon. The facts on record and the evidence available do not point to the appellant having breached any of their obligations to be responsible for the safety and security of the imported and export goods. In any case, as a 'cargo service provider', any loss attributable to the storage facility, insofar as goods is concerned would have to be borne by the appellant. Nor can we conclude that the appellant had not abided by the provisions of Customs Act, 1962 and rules framed th....