TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (9) TMI 1763
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n the interest of justice. Therefore, the early hearing application is allowed. 1.2 Considering the plea made by the applicant-appellant in the present appeal and that earlier the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in an appeal preferred by the department in Customs Appeal No.62 of 2025 had passed an order dated 22.01.2026, giving certain specific directions to the customs authorities, and pursuant to which the issue of compliance with the waiver certificate is being disputed in the present appeal, we are of the view that with the consent of both sides, the appeal itself can be taken up for hearing and disposal in the interest of justice. In view of the main appeal itself is being taken up for hearing, we do not find any specific reason or valid grounds for considering the application for stay of the impugned order, and the same is dismissed. 1.3 This appeal bearing No. C/86698 of 2026 has been filed by M/s Aegon Shipping India Private Limited, Navi Mumbai (herein after, referred to as 'the appellant', for short) assailing the order No. CUS/SU/MISC/91/2026-SCMTR-O/o COMMR-CUS-GEN-NHAVA SHEVA dated 10.08.2016 (herein after, referred to as "the impugned order", for short) issued by t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Feeling aggrieved with the impugned order, the appellant has filed this appeal before the Tribunal. 3.1 Learned Counsel for the appellant during the hearing had submitted that they are entitled to recover the applicable detention charges, beyond permissible period of 60 days as provided under Regulation 10(1)(l) of SCMTR. In support of their stand, learned counsel had relied upon the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of ASR India Private Limited Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Mundra vide Final Order No.10460/2025 dated 10.06.2025 in Customs Appeal No.10401/2025-DB. 3.2 Learned Counsel further submitted that there is no actual risk to revenue in the above case, as it is purely a dispute of detention charges to be paid by the importer with the appellant. Thus, he submitted that there is no revenue loss to the government or any systemic risk, and therefore, he claimed the impugned order suspending their operations on such ground is arbitrary and disproportionate. Further, he claimed that the appellant is only a NVOCC registered under SCMTR as 'Other Notified Carrier' and not as "Authorised Sea Carrier", and thus they are not covered by the responsibili....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nable or not, in terms of the Regulations made under the Customs Act, 1962. 7. The specific sub-regulations which were alleged to have been violated by the appellant are Regulations 10(1)(l) and 10(1)(m) of SCMTR; and 6(1)(l) of HCCAR, and hence there are three distinct charges framed against the appellant. We find that the Regulation 10 of SCMTR, 2018, provides for the obligations that an authorized sea carrier is expected to be fulfilled during their transaction with Customs in connection with import and export of goods. Similarly, under Regulation 6 of HCCAR certain responsibilities required to be fulfilled by all Customs Cargo Service Providers, including custodians holding custody of imported/export goods. These are as follows: Sea Cargo Manifest and Transhipment Regulations, 2018 "Regulation 10. Responsibilities of the authorized carrier under these regulations. - (1) An authorized carrier shall- (a) transact business in the customs station either personally or through an employee duly approved by the Deputy Commissioner or Assistant Commissioner of Customs, as the case may be; xxx xxx xxx xxx (l) not demand any container detention....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....readiness of the stakeholders, Board has issued Notification No.94/2020-Customs (N.T.) dated 30.09.2020, vide which the transitional provisions under Regulation 15(2) have been extended from 1st October, 2020 till 31st March, 2021 to enable submission of manifests under erstwhile regulations. However, as per Regulation 15(1), mandatory filing of different declarations in new format in a phased manner is provided for as per the annexure A to this circular. Different timelines are prescribed so that trade has sufficient time to comply with the new regulations in a phased manner. Further, vide Regulation 15(2), the mandatory compliance requirements for submissions of declarations and manifests under the said regulations shall applied in full effect from 1st April, 2021. xxx xxx xxx xxx 4. It is informed that Directorate General of Systems has taken several measures for handholding the trade and all stakeholders for smooth transition to the SCMTR regime. Directorate General of Systems has issued various guidelines related to the registration process and filing requirements under the new Sea Cargo Manifest and Transhipment Regulations (SCMTR) for different stakeholders....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ocation, procedure to be followed for revocation of registration etc. It is for the purpose of obtaining information under specific regulation, various forms have been prescribed under the SCMTR, whereas for obtaining such information online certain advisory for filing of messages has been prescribed under ICES Advisory 01/2024 (SCMTR) dated 13.01.2020. However, it does not dilute the responsibilities prescribed under SCMTR for the various persons concerned with the obligations to be fulfilled. 8.4 On reading the specific legal provision under Regulation 10(1)(l) ibid, we find that it had only provided for not demanding any container detention charges for the containers laden with goods detained by customs for the purpose of verification of entries made under the Customs Act, 1962. We also find that the proviso clause appended therein had provided a maximum number of sixty days for such waiver, beyond which the authorized carrier may demand such detention charges. Therefore, we are of the considered view that this provision is limited for not demanding container detention charges for the specified period of sixty days. 8.5 Further, under Regulation 6(l) of HCCAR, a Customs Ca....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er" and are hereby required to get themselves approved as "Customs Cargo Services Provider" under Handling of Cargo in "Customs Area Regulations, 2009. 6. Therefore, it is again mandated that they shall comply with approval requirement immediately as prescribed vide this Public Notice No 158/201617, dated 25.11.2016. Any violation in this regard will invite action under Handling of Cargo in Customs Areas Regulations, 2009 read with provisions of Customs Act, 1962." Since the appellant being a CCSP did not comply with the above said requirement of Regulation 6(1) of HCCAR, it would amount to violation of Regulation 10(1)(m) of SCMTR. Therefore, we do not find any reason to entertain the plea made by the appellant that they are not required to consider the recommendations of customs authorities for waiver of detention or demurrage charges, beyond the period of sixty days. 8.7 We find that the judgement of the Hon'ble Court relied upon by the appellant in the case of Shipping Corporation of India Limited (supra) had been delivered on 10.04.2001 in the context of Section 45(2)(b) of the Customs Act. As the said relied upon case, does not deal with the HCCAR and SCMTR whi....