Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2005 (6) TMI AT This

  • Login
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2005 (6) TMI 522 - AT - Customs

Issues:
1. Import of Marine Protecting Coating for use as shipping stores.
2. Surplus goods kept in Custom bonded Warehouse.
3. Refusal of extension for clearing surplus goods.
4. Denial of re-export due to lack of extension of warehousing period.
5. Auction attempt by revenue unsuccessful due to specific use of goods.
6. Request for re-export under Section 69 of the Customs Act.
7. Reference to Circular No. 3/2003 for re-export procedures.
8. Direction to appellant to approach Chief Commissioner for extending warehousing period.

Analysis:
1. The appellant imported Marine Protecting Coating from Singapore for use as shipping stores. After utilizing the goods, a part was deemed surplus and stored in a Custom bonded Warehouse.
2. The appellant's request for extension to clear the surplus goods was initially granted but later refused by the Chief Commissioner, leading to the goods not being cleared.
3. Despite the surplus goods not being of use in India, the re-export request was denied due to the absence of an extension of the warehousing period.
4. The revenue's attempt to auction the goods failed as the specific purpose of the goods made finding a buyer challenging, resulting in the goods remaining in the bonded warehouse.
5. The appellant's advocate referred to Circular No. 3/2003, highlighting the provision that allows importers to request re-export even after the warehousing period has expired, subject to extension under Section 61 of the Customs Act.
6. The advocate proposed re-approaching the Chief Commissioner to extend the warehousing period and permit re-export, presenting a practical solution beneficial to both parties.
7. The judgment set aside the previous order and directed the appellant to approach the Chief Commissioner for extending the warehousing period, emphasizing the importance of deciding on the re-export request thereafter.
8. The appeals were disposed of with the above directions, indicating a procedural path for addressing the issues related to the surplus goods and re-export request.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates