2016 (2) TMI 322 - HC - Customs

Recovery notice for Warehoused of goods - application for extension of warehouse period - Case of the petitioner is that it is not possible to complete manufacturing of a ship in couple of years and usually takes longer time, during which the goods remained warehoused. - Held that - We are prima facie of the opinion that if no protection is granted, the petitioner would suffer irreparable loss. We may recall that the first of the demand notices was issued on 29.11.2013. The Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs, Surat, till further orders, therefore, shall not proceed with the hearing in connection with the said demand notices. - Interim relief granted.

Summary

Issues:
- Extension of warehousing period for imported machinery
- Recovery of customs duties and interests
- Interpretation of Customs Act, 1962

Extension of Warehousing Period:
The petitioner, a ship manufacturing company, imports machinery for its manufacturing activities, which are warehoused during the process. The petitioner applied for an extension of the warehousing period, which was not yet decided by the Chief Commissioner. Despite the pending application, demand notices for customs duties were issued by the Assistant Commissioner. The petitioner argued that under Section 65 of the Customs Act, 1962, seeking an extension might not even be necessary as the goods do not fall under certain sections of the Act. The petitioner referred to CBEC circulars suggesting that extensions should be granted in cases of longer manufacturing times. The court acknowledged the petitioner's concerns and issued a notice to be returnable on a specified date, restraining the Assistant Commissioner from proceeding with the hearing on the demand notices until further orders.

Recovery of Customs Duties and Interests:
The Assistant Commissioner issued demand notices for the recovery of customs duties with interests, despite the petitioner's pending application for an extension of the warehousing period. The court recognized the potential irreparable loss the petitioner could suffer if no protection was granted. Considering the circumstances and the fact that the demand notices had been issued since 2013, the court directed that the Assistant Commissioner should not proceed with the hearing related to the demand notices until further orders. This decision aimed to prevent any immediate adverse consequences to the petitioner pending the final decision on the extension application.

Interpretation of Customs Act, 1962:
The court examined the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962, particularly focusing on the petitioner's argument that an extension might not be necessary based on the specific sections of the Act. The petitioner's counsel highlighted relevant circulars of the CBEC supporting the granting of extensions in cases where manufacturing processes take longer. The court, prima facie, agreed with the petitioner's contentions and expressed a preliminary opinion that the recovery of duties should not be permissible while the application for extension is pending. This interpretation of the Customs Act aimed to ensure a fair and just outcome for the petitioner, considering the nature of their manufacturing activities and the need for extended warehousing periods for imported machinery.