Back
2019 Supreme(Mad) 1530
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
K.RAVICHANDRABAABU, J.
M/s.Thiru Rani Logistic Private Ltd. - Appellant
Versus
The Commissioner of Customs (Chennai-VIII) Customs House - Respondent
W.P.No.34027 of 2018 and W.M.P.No.39521 of 2018
Decided on : 08-01-2019
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr.S.Vasudevan
For the Respondent: Mr.G.M.Syed Nurullah Sheriff, Standing Counsel
Headnote:
Customs Act, 1962 - Section 45 – Record evidence - Facts and circumstances of present case - Freight Link Logistics Private Limited - Police Authorities did not accept complaint on ground that only Customs Authority shall have right to lodge complaint petitioner immediately informed to respondent authorized officer present at Container Freight Station orally complaint was also made to respondent’s representatives in Dock Intelligence Unit in writing. An e-mail was also sent respondent petitioner could not immediately inform the theft of Container without actually and physically verifying each of Containers since there are more than containers were stored in Container Freight Station – Held, Going by above decision of this Court as well as Division Bench of Calcutta High Court, it is evident that present impugned order passed under Regulation 11(2) without there being any finding as to why immediate action is necessary to suspend the license, cannot be sustained even though the respondent is entitled to proceed against the petitioner under 11(1) after issuing notice to them - No doubt learned counsel for respondent contended that impugned order had referred to all violations of Standing orders and therefore impugned suspension order has to be construed as one passed with immediate action - court have already stated that suspension under Regulation 11(2) is not a punishment – Hence alleged violation cannot be relied on as the sole basis for taking action under Regulation 11(2). At this juncture, it is to be noted that after alleged theft of Container and complaint made by petitioner on very next day before Customs Authorities, the respondent permitted petitioner to clear 88 Containers - This fact will go to show that inspire of allegation made in impugned order, the petitioner was permitted to clear 88 Containers arrived at Chennai Port - Learned counsel for respondent though vehemently contended that the petitioner has violated various procedures contemplated under the Regulations and that of Standing this Court is not expressing any view on the above contentions when admittedly, an enquiry is pending against the petitioner - Even otherwise, as I already pointed out the respondent is not prevented from suspending or revoking the license by invoking Regulation 11(1) after issuing notice to petitioner. As this Court is convinced to interfere with the impugned order only on the reason that the same is not satisfying requirement under 11(2) of above said Regulation other contentions raised by learned counsel for respondent on merits of the allegation made against petitioner, need not be looked into at this stage - Petition is closed
ORDER :
The petitioner is aggrieved against the order of suspension dated 13.12.2018 issued under Regulation 11(2) of Handling of Cargo in Customs Areas Regulations, 2009.
2. The case of the petitioner is as follows:
(a) The petitioner is licensed to run its Container Freight Station at No.1, New North 200 Feet Road, Madhavaram, Chennai - 600 110. The license was issued under the Handling of Cargo in Customs Areas Regulations, 2009 (HCCAR). The license is renewed till 31.05.2022. During the normal course of its business, the Container Freight Station received a Container bearing No.HMMU6066767 on 25.10.2018. The Container was nominated to the Container Freight Station for movement and clearance by Freight Link Logistics Private Limited. The Consignee was SLV Trading Company. The Bill of Entry seems to have been filed by the Importer with the Customs describing the goods stuffed in the Container as “Christmas Decoration Lights and Horns”. Pursuant to filing such Bill of Entry, the officers of the Dock Intelligence Unit under the respondent came to the Container Freight Station of the petitioner on 26.10.2018 and examined the contents. The Cargo was found to be White Crane Needles, Sewing Machine Needless, Shirt Pins for Garments etc., and also some Christmas Decoration Lights and Horns. This was a clear case of mis-declaration of the Cargo by the Importer, to which, the petitioner has no role to play.
(b) The Customs Officer seized the Cargo on 27.10.2018 and kept in storage at the Container Freight Station inside the Container Yard of the petitioner. A Mahazar was issued by the Customs Authorities dated 27.10.2018. On 05.12.2018 at about 22.53 hours, a truck bearing Registration No.TN 04 AQ 3488 arrived at the Container Freight Station. The said truck produced a Gate Pass which later turned out to be a forged Gate Pass and deceived the Security Staff of the Container Freight Station to get ingress into the Container Freight Station. Based on the forged Gate Pass, the truck took delivery of the said Container with the Cargo seized by the Customs and left in the Container Freight Station. At that time, the Preventive Officer of the Container Freight Station was not present. On 06.12.2018 at about 12.30 p.m., the theft/crime was noticed when the Gate Pass was discovered to be a forgery. The CCTV footage was thereafter checked and the details of the truck bearing Registration No.TN 04 AQ 3488 were traced out. Thereafter, enquiries were made and the owner of the truck was traced and it was found that the Cargo was de-stuffed and the empty container stored in M/s.Sri Container Terminal. Thereafter, the petitioner lodged a written complaint with M-1 Madhavaram Police Station and the Officers of the Customs. The Police Authorities did not accept the complaint on the ground that only the Customs Authority shall have right to lodge the complaint. The petitioner immediately informed to the respondent authorized officer present at the Container Freight Station orally on 06.12.2018 at 4.30 p.m. The complaint was also made to the respondent’s representatives in Dock Intelligence Unit at 5.45 p.m. in writing. An e-mail dated 06.12.2018 was also sent at 6.20 p.m. to the respondent. The petitioner could not immediately inform the theft of the Container without actually and physically verifying each of the Containers since there are more than 400 containers were stored in the Container Freight Station.
(c) The Officer of Customs arrived at 7.30 p.m. on 06.12.2018 at the spot and conducted investigation. The petitioner fully cooperated with the investigation. The petitioner had also immediately taken action to recover the container through its sources. The Customs conducted a proper investigation and traced out both the containers as well as the stolen goods/Cargo which was imported through the Container. Some of the perpetrators have been detained by the Customs. The Officers of the respondent, therefore, recovered the entire Cargo which was stolen
