9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Demand of duty on goods warehoused under Section 59 of the Customs Act, 1962, imposition of interest under Section 61, penalties under Section 117, contravention of provisions of Section 61, extension of warehousing period, rejection of extension request, permission for re-export, failure to clear goods, application for extension, response from authorities, Board's Circular 3/2003, legal validity of communication by Superintendent, powers of Commissioner under Section 61, demands of duty and penalties. Analysis: The case involved three appeals against the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Bangalore, concerning the demand of duty on goods warehoused under Section 59 of the Customs Act, 1962. The original authority imposed Customs Duty under Section 72, interest under Section 61, and penalties under Section 117 for contravention of the provisions of Section 61. The appellants imported electronic items, warehoused them, and applied for extension of the warehousing period. Despite their efforts and reasons provided, the Commissioner rejected the extension request, leading to a situation where the appellants sought permission for re-export due to changes in technology and market conditions. The Tribunal noted that the Commissioner's rejection lacked proper consideration of the Board's Circular 3/2003, which allows re-export even after the bonding period has expired. The Superintendent's communication did not constitute a legal order as required under the Customs Act, and the Commissioner failed to apply his mind adequately in considering the extension requests. The Tribunal emphasized the statutory power of the Commissioner under Section 61 and the need for careful exercise of such powers. Referring to a previous case, the Tribunal highlighted the importance of considering requests for re-export and set aside the demands of duty and penalties imposed in the impugned order. The Tribunal concluded that the demands and penalties could not be sustained in light of the failure to properly address the extension requests and the re-export considerations. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with any consequential relief deemed necessary. The judgment was pronounced in open court on 10-5-2007.
|
