Handling of Cargo in Customs Areas Regulations, 2009 › Handling of Cargo in Customs Areas Regulations, 2009

Regulation 6. Responsibilities of Customs Cargo Service provider

Handling of Cargo in Customs Areas Regulations, 2009

Official text

Regulation 6. Responsibilities of Customs Cargo Service provider:

(1) The Customs Cargo Service provider shall -

(a) keep a record of imported goods, goods brought for export or transshipment, as the case may be, and produce the same to the Inspector of Customs or Preventive Officer or Examining officer as and when required;

(aa) Provide information regarding arrival of the imported goods to the Deputy Commissioner or Assistant Commissioner of Customs immediately on arrival of said goods in the customs area and also information about their departure after the clearance thereof.

(b) keep a record of each activity or action taken in relation to the movement or handling of imported or export goods and goods brought for transhipment;

(c) display or make available in any other manner, information of process or movement or handling of imported or export goods and goods brought for transhipment;

(d) demarcate separate areas for unloading of imported goods for their storage with respect to the category of importers, nature of goods, place of destination, mode of transportation or any other criterion as the Principal Commissioner of Customs or Commissioner of Customs, as the case may be may specify having regard to the custody and handling of imported goods in a customs area;

(e) demarcate separate areas for loading of export goods for their storage with respect to categories of exporters, nature of goods, examined and sealed containers or other criterion as the Principal Commissioner of Customs or Commissioner of Customs, as the case may be may specify having regard to the custody and handling of export goods in a customs area;

(f) not permit goods to be removed from the customs area, or otherwise dealt with, except under and in accordance with the permission in writing of the Superintendent of Customs or Appraiser;

(g) not permit any export cargo to enter the customs area without a shipping bill or a bill of export having been filed with the Deputy Commissioner or Assistant Commissioner of Customs;

(h) not permit any import cargo to enter the customs area or be unloaded therein without the import report or the import manifest having been filed with the Deputy Commissioner or Assistant Commissioner of Customs;

(i) be responsible for the safety and security of imported and export goods under its custody;

(j) be liable to pay duty on goods pilfered after entry thereof in the customs area;

(k) be responsible for the secure transit of the goods from the said customs area to any other customs area at the same or any other customs station in accordance with the permission granted by the Deputy Commissioner or Assistant Commissioner of Customs;

(l) subject to any other law for the time being in force, shall not charge any rent or demurrage on the goods seized or detained or confiscated by the Superintendent of Customs or Appraiser or Inspector of Customs or Preventive officer or examining officer, as the case may be;

(m) dispose off in the manner specified and within a time limit of ninety days, the imported or export goods lying unclaimed, uncleared or abandoned:

Provided that the period of ninety days may be extended by the Principal Commissioner of Customs or Commissioner of Customs, as the case may be by such further period as may be allowed, on sufficient cause being shown for delay in the disposal;

(n) not make any alteration in the entry or exit points or boundary wall without the permission of the Commissioner of Customs;

(o) shall bear the cost of the customs officers posted by the Principal Commissioner of Customs or Commissioner of Customs, as the case may be on cost recovery basis and shall make payments at such rates and in the manner specified by the Government of India in the Ministry of Finance unless specifically exempted by an order of the said Ministry;

(p) shall observe the Central Government holidays as followed by the jurisdictional Customs formations and in case of any variation in the working days, intimate the same to Principal Commissioner of Customs or Commissioner of Customs, as the case may be and the trade, at least seven days in advance, and

(q) abide by all the provisions of the Act and the rules, regulations, notifications and orders issued thereunder.

(2) The Customs Cargo Service provider approved for custody of imported or export goods and for handling of such goods shall not lease, gift, sell or sublet or in any other manner transfer any of the premises in a customs area; or sub contract or outsource functions permitted or required to be carried out by him in terms of these regulations to any other person, without the written permission of the Principal Commissioner of Customs or Commissioner of Customs, as the case may be.

(3) The Customs Cargo Service provider shall publish and display at prominent places including website or webpage of the Customs Cargo Service provider the schedule of charges for the various services provided by him in relation to the imported goods or export goods in the customs area.

Judgments on Regulation 6

  • M/S India Haat Agrotech Private Limited vs Kolkata-Port — CESTAT, 13 Oct 2026. Conditions for provisional release under Section 110A must be confined to protecting the duty actually at stake; the likely penalty and fine cannot be quantified into a bank guarantee before the authenticity of the…
  • M/S International Cargo Terminal Pvt… vs Commissioner Of Customs-Mumbai -… — CESTAT, 8 Jun 2026. Immediate suspension of a CFS/CCSP approval under Regulation 11 of HCCAR, 2009 is only a temporary measure and cannot be continued beyond a reasonable period (and beyond the 15-day limit indicated in Regulation 7(2))…
  • Speedy Multimodes Ltd vs The Commissioner Of Customs Ns-Gen… — CESTAT, 4 Mar 2024. A CFS custodian/CCSP cannot escape liability for pilferage of seized goods in its custody merely because third parties had access; it must indemnify the value of the lost goods under Regulation 5(6) of HCCAR and is…
  • International Cargo Services vs Ahmedabad — CESTAT, 11 Apr 2022. Revocation of a Customs Broker's licence must be commensurate with the gravity of the offence and, being an extreme and harsh punishment, should be imposed only in the rarest of rare cases of serious irregularity or…
  • Sahaj Impex vs Balmer Lawrie And Co. Ltd — Bombay High Court, 18 Jan 2021. A Customs Cargo Service Provider or custodian cannot charge rent or demurrage on goods seized, detained or confiscated by the proper officer of customs for the certified detention period, must release the goods on…
  • ) The Commissioner Of Customs vs M/S Isha Exim — Madras High Court, 6 Dec 2024. An Advance Ruling validly obtained under the Customs Act, 1962 binds the Department, which must follow the classification it directs as per Section 28J, and goods detained contrary to such a ruling must be released with…
  • Central Warehousing Corporation vs Ahmedabad — CESTAT, 22 Jul 2024. In the absence of a statutory recovery mechanism and rates and manner specified by the Government of India, cost recovery charges cannot be recovered from a CFS/custodian even under Regulations 5(2) and 6(1)(o) of the…
  • Diamond And Gem Development vs Ahmedabad — CESTAT, 12 Jun 2024. Cost recovery charges for customs officers posted in a customs area cannot be confirmed or recovered from a Customs Cargo Service provider where HCCAR, 2009 prescribes no recovery mechanism and the Government of India…
  • Apm Terminals India P Ltd Main vs The Commissioner Of Customs Ns-Gen… — CESTAT, 17 May 2024. Control of customs areas under HCCAR-2009 confers no authority on customs officers to enforce the Manufacture, Storage and Import of Hazardous Chemicals Rules, 1989, a public notice has no legal standing under the…
  • Container Corporation Of India Ltd vs Commissioner Of Customs-Nhava Sheva — CESTAT, 11 Sep 2023. A custodian/CCSP to whom seized goods are handed over for safe custody under a panchanama cannot escape liability for pilferage caused by negligence by pleading absence of supratnama or non-involvement of its employees,…
  • M/S.Sherisha Technologies Pvt. Ltd vs The Chief Commissioner Of Customs — Madras High Court, 13 Jun 2022. Rent/demurrage on seized imported goods stored in a customs area is waivable for the investigation period under Regulation 6(1)(l) of the Handling of Cargo in Customs Areas Regulations, 2009, but thereafter liability…
  • M/S.Isha Exim vs The Commissioner Of Customs — Madras High Court, 1 Jul 2021. A Detention/Demurrage Waiver Certificate issued by Customs is merely an eligibility certificate for claiming the benefit of Regulation 6(1)(l) of the Handling of Cargo in Customs Areas Regulations, 2009, and does not by…
  • M/S.R.M.Trading vs The Principal Commissioner Of Customs — Madras High Court, 1 Jul 2021. A Detention Certificate issued by Customs under Regulation 6(1)(l) of the Handling of Cargo in Customs Areas Regulations, 2009 is merely an eligibility certificate — it does not by itself confer a right to refund of…
  • M/S.Sai Lakshmi Engineering vs The Principal Commissioner Of Customs — Madras High Court, 1 Jul 2021. A Customs Detention/Demurrage Waiver certificate under Regulation 6(1)(l) of the Handling of Cargo in Customs Areas Regulations, 2009 is binding on the Service Provider but is only an eligibility certificate, and…
  • Wardha Solar (Maharashtra) Private Limited vs The Union Of India — Madras High Court, 22 Jun 2021. A Detention Certificate issued by Customs is only an eligibility certificate for claiming the benefit under Regulation 6(1)(l) of the Handling of Cargo in Customs Areas Regulations, 2009 and confers no right to refund…
  • The Supreme Industries Limited Through… vs The Central Board Of Indirect Taxes And… — Bombay High Court, 8 Mar 2021. In case of repugnancy between a validly made subordinate legislation and a private contract, the contract must yield; a detention cum demurrage waiver certificate issued under Regulation 10(1)(l) of the SCMTR, 2018…
  • Shree Shyam Enterprises vs Union Of India & Ors — Delhi High Court, 20 Dec 2019. The prohibition in Regulation 6(1)(l) of the Handling of Cargo in Customs Areas Regulations, 2009 on charging rent or demurrage on seized, detained or confiscated goods is 'subject to any other law for the time being in…
  • M/S.Unik Traders vs The Addl. Director General — Madras High Court, 9 Jul 2019. A show cause notice will not be quashed in writ jurisdiction except in rare and exceptional cases where it is wholly without jurisdiction or wholly illegal, and under Section 151B(5) of the Customs Act, 1962 a Customs…
  • Mumbai Port Trust vs M/S. Shri Lakshmi Steels And Ors. Etc. — Supreme Court of India, 27 Jul 2017. Where delay in release of detained imported goods is attributable partly to the importer, the importer cannot claim exemption from demurrage and detention charges, the remedy for remission lying under Section 53 of the…
  • Welspun Maxsteel Ltd vs Mumbai — CESTAT, 1 Nov 2013. Once a contravention of Regulation 6(2) of the Handling of Cargo in Customs Areas Regulations, 2009 or Section 45(2)(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 occurs, penalty under Regulation 12(8) and Section 117 is mandatorily…

All 21 judgments