The Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) in a recent case has held that the import of refrigerant gas in cylinders requires permission from the controller of explosives. The Tribunal further upheld the penalty on Container Corporation of India (CCI) for misdeclaration and dismissed the appeal of CONCOR India.
According to the information obtained, two containers belonging to M/s. Shanker Impex that contained banned and misreported items had been lying in ICD, Tughlakabad, New Delhi, since June 2010. Two containers holding this information had been lying in ICD, Tughlakabad, for more than three years, according to the DRI’s examination and investigation. Container No. GLDU7380644 was the subject of a Bill of Entry; however, no “out of charge” was provided.
Become PF & ESIC Pro: Basic to Advance Course – Enroll Today
The appellant/assessee, Container Corporation of India Ltd., said that a formal complaint was filed with the relevant police authorities after a joint survey of the container revealed it to be empty. Cylinders containing Refrigerant 22 Chlorodifluoromethane, Refrigerant 22 Monochlorodifluoromethane, and SSG 22 Chlorodifluoromethane gas were discovered within the container during inspection of its contents.
SSG 22 Gas, which is classified as an ozone depleting material under chapter title 903 4490 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, requires an import authorization. This is in accordance with the Montréal Protocol. As a result, the commodities were confiscated in accordance with Customs Act Section 110.
Become PF & ESIC Pro: Basic to Advance Course – Enroll Today
A show-cause notice was sent out in accordance with Section 124 of the Customs Act, requiring the appellant and other parties to pay customs duty, interest, and a penalty of Rs. 1,00,000 in accordance with Sections 28 and 45 of the Act and the Regulations of 2009. According to the Adjudicating Authority’s ruling, the products might be seized in accordance with Section 111(d).
They must pay duty and a penalty on the stolen items as they were taken out of CONCOR Warehouse while they were in their custody, as per Section 45 of the Act and Rule 6(1) of the Regulations. The appeal that the appellant filed was denied.
Become PF & ESIC Pro: Basic to Advance Course – Enroll Today
The appellant has not shown any proof that the container was either broken or lacked a seal when the items were placed in their custody, according to the two-member bench of Binu Tamta (Judicial Member). The Delhi High Court has already addressed the appellant’s argument that the commodities were in CISF deployment, ruling that the appellant cannot avoid this burden by placing the blame on the CISF.
When the products were not yet cleared, the tribunal determined that the container seal had been tampered with and that the goods had been stolen. It was decided that, in accordance with Section 45, the custodian bears the obligation for the safe custody of imported goods until they are approved for either domestic use or storage.
Become PF & ESIC Pro: Basic to Advance Course – Enroll Today
While dismissing the appeal, the CESTAT viewed that since the appellant was responsible for keeping the commodities safe and secure while in their care, no interference is required in the imposition of the penalty under Section 117 of the Act.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
