Akshay Logistics Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Mumbai)
CESTAT Mumbai held that there is no provision/ stipulation that prohibits temporary retention of goods in non-bonded area while remedies were under way and, that too, with permission from customs authorities. Accordingly, redemption fine and penalties set aside.
Facts- The present appeal has been filed by the appellant having a public warehouse licenced u/s. 57 of Customs Act, 1962. The proceedings were premised on statutory oversight inhering in the licensor in furtherance of authorization to licencee as ‘receiver’ and ‘custodian’ of ‘imported goods’ pending clearance, contingent on adherence to section 68 of Customs Act, 1962 by discharge of duty liability as assessed and on not being prohibited for import, implying the continued interests of the exchequer in ‘as is where is’ condition of the goods. There is, thus, both statutory mandate and contractually binding obligation intended to achieve such purpose with corresponding penalties for breach. The proceedings arose from visit of the premises of the appellant by officers of the respondent between 28th August 2023 and 5th September 2023 and the alleged infractions noticed then prompted invoking of section 58B(2) of Customs Act, 1962 for suspension of the licence effective from 7th September 2023 that was followed by show cause notice which was adjudicated, on both aspects, to bring this appeal before us.
