LAWS(CE)-2002-12-123

AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

Decided On December 12, 2002
AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA Appellant
V/S
COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD both sides.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that, the appellants in view of Public Notice No. 29/86, dated 29 -4 -1986 are custodian of detained/mishandled baggage to be stored pending clearance/re -export/disposal. Certain goods were handed over to the appellants by the Customs authorities in the year 1993 and the same were returned to the Customs authorities in the year 1996. The present show cause notices were issued to the appellants on 18 -9 -1998 on the ground that the goods handed over to the appellants were found short and, therefore, they are liable to pay the price of the short goods as well as the customs duty. The adjudicating authority ordered the recovery of the value of the goods and the customs duty. The appellants filed the appeal and the Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order held that there is no provision under the Customs Act to recover the value of the goods and upheld the order in respect of the demand of customs duty.

(3.) THE contention of the appellants is that, the goods were handed over to them in the year 1993 bearing the seal of the Customs authorities. The goods were returned to the Customs authorities on their demand in the year 1996, and at that time, the Customs authorities had not raised any objection in respect of the tampering of the seal or in respect of the shortage of the goods. Therefore, after two years i.e. on 18 -9 -1998, the show cause notices were issued on the ground that condition No. 8 of the Public Notice No. 29/86 is violated. In the show cause notices, no provision of Customs Act was invoked and only an averment was made that they had violated the provisions of Customs Act. The adjudicating authority invoked the provisions of Section 45(3) of Customs Act. The contention of the appellants is that, the Customs authorities are not sure under which provision of law the duty can be demanded. The contention of the appellants is also that, the adjudication order as well as the order -in -appeal are beyond the scope of the show cause notices.