Case Details: International Cargo Terminal Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Customs (General), Raigad (2026) 43 Centax 312 (Tri.-Bom)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
-
- S/Shri S.K. Mohanty, Member (J) & M.M. Parthiban, Member (T)
- Dr Sujay Kantawala, Ms Aishwarya Kantawala, Advs. along with Shri Manoj Das, Consultant, for the Appellant.
- Shri P.R.V. Ramanan, Special Counsel, for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
Multiple allegations were raised against the appellant, a Container Freight Station (CFS) functioning as a Customs Cargo Service Provider (CCSP), including organised smuggling of fireworks/firecrackers, facilitation of unauthorised removal of goods, unauthorised entry of vehicles, goods and labourers, unauthorised seal cutting, manipulation of scanning records, inadequate entry and exit controls, and failure to comply with prescribed security requirements for goods stored in the CFS. Allegations were also made regarding the involvement of the management and the lack of effective supervision by its officials. Based on these allegations, the Commissioner continued the suspension of the appellant’s operations under Regulation 11 of the Handling of Cargo in Customs Areas Regulations (HCCAR), 2009. The appellant challenged the continuation of suspension before the CESTAT.
CESTAT Held
The CESTAT held that continuation of suspension under Regulation 11 of the HCCAR, 2009, could not be sustained without obtaining an inquiry report as contemplated under Regulation 12. The Tribunal observed that the HCCAR aims to facilitate expeditious clearance of goods, reduce dwell time and transaction costs, and safeguard revenue. It further noted that Regulation 7(2) envisages regulation of the entry and exit of cargo only as a temporary measure and does not contemplate indefinite restrictions. The Tribunal observed that the allegations made by the investigating agency required proper examination and that the Commissioner was required to determine the nature and extent of the alleged violations on the basis of the inquiry report and the representation submitted by the CFS/CCSP. Accordingly, the order continuing the suspension beyond a reasonable period, without substantiating the necessity for immediate suspension under Regulation 11 and without completing the prescribed inquiry process, was set aside.
List of Departmental Clarification Cited
-
- CBIC Circular No. 44/2020-Customs, dated: 08.10.2020 [Paras 7.2, 10.1]
- C.B.E. & C Circular No. 13/2009-Customs, dated: 23.09.2009 [Para 9.1]
List of Notifications Cited
-
- Notification No. 12/2016, dated 23.12.2016 [Paras 2.1, 7.2]
- Notification No. 26/2009-Customs, dated 17.03.2009 [Para 9.1]
- Notification No. 1/2025, dated 11.07.2025 [Para 10.3]
