Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Tamil Nadu
Tirupur Container Terminals Pvt. Ltd. vs Commr. Of Cus. on 21 April, 2005
Equivalent citations: 2005(189)ELT303(TRI-CHENNAI)
ORDER P.G. Chacko, Member (J)
1. These applications filed by M/s. Tirupur Container Terminals Pvt. Ltd. and their General Manager Mr. Mahesh Devarajhan are in respect of the penalties of Rs. 10,000/- each imposed on them under Section 117 of the Customs Act. The above company was appointed as custodian for import goods and export goods entering ICD, Tirupur. Certain export goods, which were brought to this notified Customs area by the custodian, were removed by them on 7-8-2003 without intimation to the proper officer of Customs. This act of the appellant-Company was taken as a breach of Section 45 of the Customs Act and a penalty of Rs. 10,000/- was imposed on them by the original authority. A separate penalty of like amount was also imposed on the General Manager. Both these penalties have been upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals).
2. The appellants do not have a case that they removed the export goods from the ICD (Customs area) under intimation to the Department. Relying on Public Notice No. 52/2004 issued by the Commissioner of Customs (Port), Chennai, ld. Counsel for the appellants submits that, prior to issuance of this Public Notice, there was a practice of bringing import goods and export goods to Customs area before filing of Bill of Entry/Shipping Bill. According to ld. Counsel, that such practice was in vogue in the past was acknowledged by the Department in the above Public Notice. Hence the appellants were not liable to be penalised under Section 117 on the ground of export goods having been brought into or removed from the ICD before filing of Shipping Bill. This plea is contested by ld. DR, who submits that the Public Notice issued by the Commissioner of Customs, Chennai cannot be relied on in respect of ICD, Tirupur. Ld. JDR further submits that, even otherwise, cases of removal of export goods from Customs area behind the back of the Customs authorities are not covered under the Public Notice. Ld. Counsel, in his rejoinder, submits that a Public Notice issued from one Commissionerate of Customs has to be followed in other Commissionerates also, In this connection, reliance is placed on the Supreme Court's judgment in Steel Authority of India Ltd. v. Collector [2000 (115) E.L.T. 42 (S.C.)], wherein it was held that the Department could not take one stand in one State and another stand in another State and, therefore, a Trade Notice issued in one Customs House must bind all Customs authorities in the country.
3. After perusing the Public Notice and considering the submissions, I find that the Public Notice relates to the bringing of export goods into CFS/CCTL/Port area before filing of Shipping Bill. It does not speak of removal of such goods from such area before filing of Shipping Bills. More over, it has not been shown to me that any ICD is covered by the areas/stations mentioned in the Public Notice. Hence it appears to me that the case put forward by ld. Counsel on behalf of the company by relying on the Public Notice is not free from doubt. In the circumstances, the Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgment is not relevant. The company is directed to pre-deposit an amount of Rs. 5,000/-, which they shall do within four weeks. Report compliance on 24-6-2005.
4. Prima facie, a separate penalty on the General Manager under the same provision of law for the same offence is not sustainable. Hence there will be waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery in respect of the penalty imposed on Mr. Mahesh Devarajhan.
(Dictated and pronounced in open Court)