2015 (7) TMI 61 - AT - Customs

Extension of warehousing period - Clandestine removal of goods - Held that - According to Section 72 of Customs Act, 1962, if any warehoused goods are not removed from a warehouse on the expiration of period during which such goods are permitted under Section 61 to remain in the warehouse. The proper officer may demand duty and the owner of such goods shall forthwith pay, the full amount of duty chargeable on account of such goods together with all penalties, rent, interest and other charges payable in respect of such goods. In view of the specific provisions in the Section 72, once extension of time sought for storing goods in the warehouse is refused, the duty and interest and other liabilities automatically arise. - Therefore the impugned order cannot be found fault with - Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues: Duty demand on goods not removed from warehouse within specified time period; refusal of extension request; confirmation of duty demand by Tribunal.

Analysis:
1. Duty Demand on Goods not Removed from Warehouse: The case revolved around a show-cause notice issued to the appellant concerning the stock position of raw material in a warehouse. The notice alleged that the goods were not cleared within the stipulated time for storage, leading to a demand for duty under Section 72 of the Customs Act, 1962. The Commissioner had rejected the appellant's request for an extension, citing the registration of an offense case and the view that the goods were clandestinely removed. The Tribunal confirmed the duty demand, emphasizing that under Section 72, if warehoused goods are not removed within the permitted time, the proper officer can demand duty, penalties, rent, interest, and other charges.

2. Refusal of Extension Request: Despite the appellant's arguments regarding principles of natural justice and factual distortions, the Tribunal held that the legal provisions of the Customs Act, 1962, specifically Section 72, were paramount. Once an extension for storing goods in the warehouse is denied, the duty, interest, and other liabilities automatically arise. The Tribunal found no fault with the impugned order due to the clear provisions of Section 72, leading to the rejection of the appellant's claims.

3. Confirmation of Duty Demand by Tribunal: The Tribunal, in the absence of the appellant or any request for adjournment, proceeded with the decision on the appeal. Given the repeated non-appearance of the appellant and the refusal of the extension request, the Tribunal upheld the duty demand as per the legal framework outlined in the Customs Act, 1962. The Tribunal's decision was based on the specific provisions of Section 72, which mandate the payment of duty and associated charges upon the expiration of the permitted storage period in a warehouse.

In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, emphasizing the strict adherence to the statutory provisions of the Customs Act, 1962, regarding the removal of goods from a warehouse within the prescribed timeframe and the consequences of denial of extension requests. The judgment highlights the significance of compliance with legal requirements in matters of duty demands and warehouse storage under the Customs Act.