2002 (10) TMI 556 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the goods imported by the appellant were considered warehoused.
2. Whether the substitution of warehouse bill of entry by home consumption bill of entry was justified.
3. Whether the liability to pay interest should be calculated from the date of filing the bill of entry.

Analysis:
1. The appellant imported goods and filed bills of entry for warehousing, seeking to transfer the goods to a private bonded warehouse. The Commissioner of Customs permitted the release of the goods, but the appellant later requested to substitute the warehousing bill of entry with a home consumption bill of entry. The Commissioner (Appeals) held that since the goods were not physically warehoused, they could not be considered warehoused goods, justifying the substitution. The Tribunal agreed, emphasizing the need for goods to be deposited in a warehouse to be considered warehoused goods. The judgment clarified that the waiver of physical warehousing does not change this requirement, and in this case, Vadinar was not a designated warehousing station, making the warehousing bill of entry invalid.

2. The appellant contended that the substitution of bills of entry was not legal as the period for noting bills of entry was not followed. However, the Tribunal found this argument unclear and irrelevant to the issue at hand. The Tribunal highlighted the importance of following proper procedures for noting bills of entry but ultimately concluded that the issue did not impact the validity of the substitution. The Tribunal upheld the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) regarding the justification for substituting the warehouse bill of entry with a home consumption bill of entry.

3. The appellant also raised concerns about the calculation of interest, arguing that it should be based on the date of filing the bill of entry. However, the Tribunal found that the liability for interest should be determined based on the actual removal date of the goods, as per the provisions of the Act. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, stating that the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) was justified in all aspects, including the calculation of interest.