Concor Vs Principal Commissioner of Customs Imports ICD TKD (CESTAT Delhi)
The appeal before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Delhi, concerned the liability of a custodian under section 45 of the Customs Act, 1962, for alleged pilferage of imported goods. The appellant, a public sector undertaking acting as custodian of imported goods at Inland Container Depots (ICDs) and Container Freight Stations (CFS), challenged an order confirming a duty demand of ₹51,80,776 along with penalties under sections 112 and 117 of the Act.
Under the statutory framework, imported goods remain in the custody of an approved custodian until clearance, and the custodian is responsible for their safekeeping. If goods are pilfered while in custody, the custodian becomes liable to pay duty. In this case, five containers declared in the Import General Manifest (IGM) as containing high-value items such as aluminum ingots, zinc ingots, and masks were found, upon examination, to contain cement blocks. Based on this discrepancy, the department alleged pilferage and sought recovery of duty from the custodian.
The appellant contended that containers are handled on a “said to contain” basis and neither the shipping line nor the custodian has authority to open or verify contents unless directed by customs. It argued that there was no evidence to show that the declared goods were actually imported or that any substitution occurred while the containers were in its custody. Examination reports conducted in the presence of customs officers and other representatives recorded the contents as cement blocks and included seal details. These reports did not indicate that seals were broken, tampered with, or replaced.
