2026-VIL-1656-CESTAT-MUM-CU
  1. Home
  2. 2026-VIL-1656-CESTAT-MUM-CU

CUSTOMS CESTAT Cases

Customs – Suspension of registration of authorised carrier – Non-compliance with detention and demurrage waiver certificate – Regulation 10(1)(l) and 10(1)(m) of Sea Cargo Manifest and Transhipment Regulations, 2018 and Regulation 6(1)(l) of Handling of Cargo in Customs Areas Regulations, 2009 – Appellant, engaged in international container shipping and Non-Vessel Operating Common Carrier operations, was issued a detention and demurrage waiver certificate pursuant to High Court directions, recommending waiver from the date of hold up to delivery of goods – Appellant did not comply with the waiver beyond the maximum permissible sixty days under the proviso to Regulation 10(1)(l) of SCMTR, and was issued an order of immediate suspension of registration under Regulation 11(2)(a) and 11(2)(c) of SCMTR – Appellant contended it is registered only as "Other Notified Carrier" and not as "Authorised Sea Carrier", hence not covered by Regulation 10(1)(l), that there is no risk to revenue and the order is disproportionate, relying on a Supreme Court decision that customs officers cannot overreach contractual terms absent any provision under the Customs Act – Whether the appellant fulfilled its obligations under SCMTR and HCCAR, and whether the suspension order is sustainable – HELD – Regulation 10(1)(l) of SCMTR only bars demanding container detention charges for a maximum of sixty days, beyond which such charges may be demanded – Under Regulation 6(l) of HCCAR, a Customs Cargo Service Provider shall not charge rent or demurrage on goods seized or detained, and since the goods were seized by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, the appellant is debarred from charging such charges – Non-Vessel Operating Common Carriers fall under the definition of Customs Cargo Service Provider under HCCAR and must comply with its provisions, and non-compliance with Regulation 6(1) amounts to violation of Regulation 10(1)(m) of SCMTR – The decision relied upon, rendered under Section 45(2)(b) of the Customs Act, does not deal with HCCAR or SCMTR, issued under distinct statutory provisions, and no guidance can be drawn from it – Since the appellant did not comply with Regulation 6(1)(l) of HCCAR, failure to fulfil Regulation 10(1)(m) of SCMTR is attracted, and the suspension order is legally valid and sustainable – The appellant was given an opportunity to submit its representation through a post-decisional hearing, observing natural justice – The impugned order does not require interference – The appeal is dismissed
Download File

Quick Search

/

Advance Search

GST Resources

/

Gst Rate Finder

Weekly Summary

VIL Video

GST & Customs updates: Sep'26
By CA Vivek Jalan

Create Account

Security-Code
New Code?

Log In

New User ? Forgot Password ?

Forgot Password

Security-Code
New Code?
Please Note: This facility is only for Subscribing Members.

Email this page

Security-Code
New Code?

Feedback this page

Schedule a Demo

Schedule a demo to know the features and advantages of VILGST portal. Get to know the tips to find the desired results in faster way.

Security-Code
New Code?

Caselaw Request Form (CRF)

Didn’t find what you are searching for? No worries, please give us the following details and VIL will email you the desired Caselaws at the earliest:

Security-Code
New Code?