2007 (8) TMI 49 - HC - Customs

Warehoused goods Department contended that respondent company liable to pay the duty along with interest and penalty on the ground that goods have outlived the warehousing period Held that department contention was not valid and set aside demand, interest and penalty

Issues Involved:
1. Right to relinquish title to warehoused goods after the expiration of the warehousing period.
2. Liability to pay duty, penalty, and interest on warehoused goods after the expiration of the warehousing period.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Right to relinquish title to warehoused goods after the expiration of the warehousing period:

The primary issue revolves around whether the respondent Company lost its right under Section 68 of the Customs Act, 1962, to relinquish title to the warehoused goods after the expiration of the warehousing period permitted under Section 61(1)(a) or the extended period under the proviso thereto.

The respondent Company argued that the goods continued to be 'warehoused goods' until their actual removal from the warehouse, and therefore, it retained the right to relinquish its title to the goods even after the expiration of the warehousing period. The Tribunal supported this view, stating that the owner does not lose title or ownership of the goods so long as they remain in the warehouse, even after the expiration of the warehousing period. The Tribunal distinguished this case from the Kesoram Rayon case, noting key differences such as the respondent Company's applications for extension of the warehousing period and the relinquishment of title before the customs authorities proceeded under Section 72(2).

The court concluded that by virtue of the proviso to Section 68 and Section 23(2) of the Act, the respondent Company had the right to relinquish its title to the goods even after the expiration of the warehousing period. Therefore, the relinquishment of title by the respondent Company was legal and valid.

2. Liability to pay duty, penalty, and interest on warehoused goods after the expiration of the warehousing period:

The second issue concerns whether the respondent Company became liable to pay duty, penalty, and interest on the warehoused goods after the expiration of the warehousing period, despite the Company relinquishing its title to the goods.

The appellant (Revenue) contended that since the respondent Company did not file an application for extension of the warehousing period before the expiration of five years, the goods could no longer be termed as 'warehoused goods,' and the Company lost its right to relinquish its title. Consequently, the goods were deemed to have been improperly removed from the bonded warehouse, making the Company liable to pay duty, penalty, and interest under Section 72(1)(b) of the Act.

However, the court found that the provisions of Sections 23(2) and the proviso to Section 68 of the Act allow the owner of warehoused goods to relinquish title to such goods at any time before an order for clearance of goods for home consumption has been made. Upon relinquishment, the owner is not liable to pay duty on the goods. Therefore, the respondent Company was not liable to pay duty, penalty, or interest on the warehoused goods after relinquishing its title.

The court upheld the Tribunal's decision to set aside the Order-in-Original, which imposed duty, interest, and penalty on the respondent Company. However, the court confirmed the imposition of duty and interest on the two UPS units found in un-bonded premises, as the respondent Company had already accepted and paid these amounts.

Conclusion:

The court dismissed the appeal, answering both substantial questions of law in favor of the respondent Company. It granted the Commissioner of Customs the liberty to recover rent, interest, and penalty from the respondent Company for the warehoused goods from the date of deposit until the date of relinquishment. The balance amount from the deposited sum was to be refunded to the respondent Company.

← Previous Next →