Oswal Minerals Ltd Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Hyderabad)
The CESTAT Hyderabad dismissed the appeal filed by M/s Oswal Minerals Ltd. against the order upholding confiscation, redemption fine and penalty arising from diversion of imported manganese ore from the designated bonded warehouse. The appellant had filed Warehouse Bill of Entry No. 9065422 dated 04.12.2023 for 5500 MT of Gabon-origin manganese ore and obtained permission under Section 60 of the Customs Act, 1962 for its removal from the Customs area to the specified Public Bonded Warehouse No. 05/2023. During investigation, however, the goods were found to have been transported to Dolphin Yard, a private premises that was not the warehouse specified in the permission. The appellant argued, among other things, that there was no intention to evade duty, that the warehouse operator had independently diverted the goods, and that defects in search and electronic evidence affected the proceedings. The Tribunal rejected these submissions. It held that the warehousing permission was confined to the designated warehouse, the importer remained responsible for statutory compliance, and Section 147 attributed the acts of the authorised agent to the importer unless the statutory presumption was rebutted. The Tribunal further held that Section 111(j) did not require proof of clandestine clearance or actual duty evasion. It sustained redemption fine of Rs. 80,00,000 under Section 125 and penalty of Rs. 9,00,000 under Section 112(a), and dismissed the appeal.
Background of the Customs Warehousing Dispute
M/s Oswal Minerals Ltd. imported manganese ore of Gabon origin through Visakhapatnam Port and filed Warehouse Bill of Entry No. 9065422 dated 04.12.2023 for warehousing of the goods.
