2013 (4) TMI 568 - HC - Customs

Private Bonded Warehouse for storage of imported goods, namely, Aircraft Parts, Aviation Parts, Oils, Lubes etc. - Licence U/s 58 of the Customs Act, 1962 - The licence was valid initially for a period of one year and was thereafter extended upto 5 June 2011 - Imported without the payment of duty - Sought an extension of the bond period in respect of seven bonds - Held that - We allow the Petition by setting aside the order of the Chief Commissioner as reflected in the communication dated 20 June 2011 of the Assistant Commissioner of Customs (Exhibit-E) and the consequential order which has been passed on 23 January 2012 (Exhibit-K). We direct that the Chief Commissioner shall pass a fresh order in accordance with law, after furnishing to the Petitioner an opportunity of being heard. Since the subject matter of the dispute now survives in respect of eight bonds, the competent authority shall pass orders in respect thereof - The Petition is accordingly disposed of.

Issues:
1. Grant of license for operating a Private Bonded Warehouse.
2. Importation and warehousing of goods without payment of duty.
3. Rejection of application for extension of bond period.
4. Request to transfer goods to an SEZ.
5. Challenge to communications rejecting extension and transfer requests.
6. Interpretation of Customs Act provisions regarding warehousing period extension.
7. Decision on setting aside the orders and providing an opportunity to be heard.

Analysis:
1. The Petitioner was granted a license under Section 58 of the Customs Act, 1962 to operate a Private Bonded Warehouse for storing imported goods. The license was initially valid for one year and later extended until 5 June 2011. However, the Petitioner did not apply for renewal after the expiration of the license.

2. The Petitioner imported aviation parts and warehoused them without paying duty by filing in-bond Bills of Entry. Bonds were executed for the consignments, and it was mentioned that the goods belonged to a specific company and were imported for stock and sale to Indian owners of certain aircraft.

3. The Petitioner's application for extension of the bond period was rejected by the Chief Commissioner of Customs on the grounds of late submission and lack of valid reasons. Subsequently, a request to transfer the goods to an SEZ was also rejected based on the earlier rejection of the bond extension request.

4. The Deputy Commissioner of Customs stated that the warehousing license had expired, leaving no room for further extensions. The Customs Act provisions were cited regarding the extension of warehousing periods, highlighting the limitations and conditions for such extensions.

5. The Court observed that the initial decision rejecting the extension request was made without giving the Petitioner an opportunity to be heard. Referring to a circular by the Central Board of Excise and Customs, the Court emphasized the need to extend the warehousing period before permitting re-export of goods.

6. The Court set aside the orders rejecting the extension and transfer requests, directing the Chief Commissioner to pass a fresh order after providing the Petitioner with a hearing opportunity. The Court did not delve into the merits of the Petitioner's entitlement, focusing on procedural fairness.

7. The Petition was disposed of with no order as to costs, emphasizing the importance of due process and fair hearings in customs-related matters.

← Previous Next →