Facts 

• The Appellant, M/s Container Corporation of India Ltd., was appointed as Custodian & Customs Cargo Service Provider (‘CCSP’) for handling of imported goods in the customs area and and has entered into a contract with Asian Cargo Movers (‘Asian Cargo’) for mechanized cargo handling and inventory management at ICD TKD.   
• M/s Baljit Nutritions Stores (P) Ltd. (importer) purportedly imported ‘nutritional supplements’ consisted in 10 pallets. Importer as intended to re-export the goods, stored the subject goods in a bonded warehouse under Section 49.
• Importer intimated Customs that it had found a buyer, and requested that the goods may be allowed for third-country export. The appellant directed Asian Cargo to provide possession of the subject goods to the importer.
• Importer’s authorized representative visited the warehouse, on being shown the subject goods, denied identity and claimed that the goods actually imported were lost. On 22.06.2017, Asian Cargo informed the appellant that the importer is denying ownership or identity of the subject goods and alleging loss of imported goods.
• The appellant filed a FIR with Delhi police for the same and found only packing materials of the brand ‘Muscle Pharma’ inside the cartons. 
• Commissioner of Customs issued a show cause alleging that the goods have been pilfered while in the custody of the appellant. Further, the appellant have failed to discharge its responsibility under ‘Handling of Cargo in Customs Area Regulations, 2009’. 
• Accordingly, show cause notice proposed to demand duty of Rs.15,84,802/- along with interest under the provisions of Section 45(3) of the Act read with Regulation 6 (1)(j) of Handling of Cargo in Customs Area Regulation, 2009 (HCCAR). Further, it cancelled appellant' licence. 

Issue 

• Whether the penalty and fine imposed under the law and cancellation of licence are in order? 

Order 

• The Tribunal observed that the imported packages have never been opened either by the Customs Authorities for inspection nor any sample was drawn. Simply based on the declaration of the importer the goods had been allowed to be warehoused by the Customs Authorities. The same were accepted without any inspection by the appellant being sealed packages/pallets. Further,  the appellant, pursuant to order for release of the goods, had offered sealed packages/pallets to the importer for delivery. Further, in the investigation by the Police, pursuant to FIR filed by the appellant, no evidence of pilferage has been found. The packages were admittedly opened for the first time by the Police Officer, wherein the packing material was found instead of ‘Nutritional Supplements’ as purportedly imported. 
• The Tribunal also find the conduct of the importer also to be dubious as initially he filed bill of entry for warehousing then after 15 days filed request for converting the warehousing bill of entry into a bill of entry for home consumption, still importer did not take the delivery. Immediately after reconversion intimated the Customs that he has found a buyer. 
• Thus, it was held that there is no case of pilferage made by the appellant. The appeal is allowed and impugned order is set aside.