Confirmation of recovery of cost of recovery charges by Commissioner under regulations 5(2) and 6(1)(o) of Customs Area Regulations 2009 unsustainable

Rajasthan Small Industries Corporation Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) (CESTAT Delhi)

CESTAT Delhi held that the Commissioner could not have ordered for cost recovery charges under the provisions of regulations 5(2) and 6(1)(o) of Customs Area Regulations 2009. Accordingly, penalty imposed under regulation 12(8) also not sustainable.

Facts-

The appellant is a State Government Undertaking. The Circular dated 14.12.1995 set out the guidelines for appointment of custodians of Container Freight Stations (CFS), Air Cargo Complexes (ACC) and Inland Container Depot (ICD). The appellant was appointed as a custodian of ICD Jodhpur under section 45(1) of the Customs Act by public notice dated 19.07.1995.

It was stipulated that the posts should be filled up only when the appellant deposits the entire cost of the said posts which was 1.85 times of the monthly average cost of the post in advanced. Accordingly, the Managing Director of the appellant submitted an undertaking to the Customs Department that the custodian shall bear the cost of the staff.

Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.