Suspension Of Warehousing Operation - Jurishour No. 1 Latest

The Bombay High Court has upheld the suspension of warehousing operation revocation citing BISCO Limited Judgement.

The bench of Justice M.S. Sonak and Justice Jitendra Jain has observed that in case of BISCO Limited, the Supreme Court noted that the Customs Authorities granted specific permissions to unload the portion of the cargo outside the open space, which was notified as a public bonded warehouse but within the factory premises.

Background

The department has filed the Appeal under Section 130 of the Customs Act 1962 challenging the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) order, allowing the Respondent’s Appeal against the Principal Commissioner’s order. By the order, the Principal Commissioner had revoked the suspension of the warehousing operation of the Respondent, but this was subject to payment of redemption fine and penalty. The order has now set aside the fine and penalty.

Arguments

The department submitted that the Respondent breached the conditions of the licence for operating a public bonded warehouse, and accordingly, the goods stored in breach of such conditions were liable for confiscation. The Principal Commissioner was justified in suspending the licence and imposing a redemption fine and penalty.

The department argued that the Tribunal misinterpreted the so-called permissions issued by the Customs Department. The permissions were granted only to assist the Respondent in the rapid unloading of the goods. However, permissions did not entitle the Respondent to breach the conditions of the licence to operate a public bonded warehouse and store the goods in breach of conditions.

The respondent contended that there was no breach of any of the conditions of the licence. In all, there were 82 tanks in a fenced area, which was duly notified. Out of these, 79 were public bonded tanks, and the remaining 3 were private bonded tanks.The Respondent was dealing with edible oils, etc., that had to be discharged from a vessel through a high-pressure pipeline. The discharge cannot be stopped midway to avoid accidents. The necessary permissions were sought and obtained to facilitate this process.

Conclusion – Suspension Of Warehousing Operation

The court noted that the central allegation concerns the alleged breach of conditions for operating a public bonded warehouse. The record bears out, and the Tribunal, in its detailed order, has held that there was no breach of any of the conditions of the licence. This is purely a finding of fact, and such finding is supported by the material on record. Not even a ground alleging perversity or otherwise to assail this finding of fact was even proposed in this Appeal.

The court while upholding the CESTAT’s ruling held that the CESTAT has not only taken due note of the circumstances in which the goods are discharged through a high-pressure pipeline from the vessel directly into the tanks but has taken cognisance of the permissions granted by the Customs Authorities from time to time.

The court held that the allegation that such permissions have been misinterpreted or misconstrued is without basis.

The court stated that the circumstances in BISCO Ltd., the permission was granted because the soil had become very sluggish due to heavy rains and lack of space within the notified open area cannot be a factor to distinguish the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The permissions were undoubtedly granted in the present case for different reasons. That will not be grounds for distinguishing the judgement of the Supreme Court.

“We have seen the applications made by the Respondent giving full particulars and the permissions granted by the authorities by way of endorsements on the very said applications. On a conjoint reading of the applications made by the Respondent and the permissions granted thereon, we do not think there is any case of breach of the licence’s conditions made out by the Appellant,” the court said while dismissing the department’s appeal.