2018 (11) TMI 1761 - AT - Customs

Removal of goods stored in the warehouse - non-settlement of the ground rent charges in respect of the cargo - non-removal of goods at the time stipulated - HELD THAT - The respondent has not taken any steps to remove the said goods which was stored at their direction. Further, the respondent has not taken any action to remove and dispose of the goods, if the importer had abandoned the same - Further, there are no reason or justification to keep the goods in the appellant s premises and therefore, the respondent are directed to take out or remove the goods from the warehouses of the appellant within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Application disposed off.

Issues:
1. Application under Rules 40 & 41 of CESTAT (Procedure) Rules for removal of goods stored in appellant's warehouse.
2. Duty demand, interest, and penalty imposed by respondent on damaged/missing bonded cargo.
3. Failure of respondent to take necessary steps to remove goods stored in appellant's warehouse.
4. Challenge of duty demand, interest, and penalty by the appellant in appeal.

Analysis:
1. The appellant filed an application under Rules 40 & 41 of CESTAT (Procedure) Rules seeking the removal of goods stored in their warehouse. The appellant, a warehousing corporation primarily for storing agricultural and other commodities, allowed the importer to de-stuff cargo in their warehouse. Despite the importer's failure to clear the cargo within the stipulated time, the respondent did not dispose of the goods. The appellant faced audit queries due to non-settlement of ground rent charges related to the cargo. The Deputy Commissioner directed the appellant to produce communication from the importer abandoning the cargo and to obtain necessary clearances for cargo release. However, instead of removing the goods, the respondent confirmed duty demand, interest, and imposed a penalty on damaged/missing bonded cargo.

2. Upon hearing both parties and examining the records, the Counsel for the appellant argued that the duty demand, interest, and penalty imposed by the respondent were unjustified as the goods stored were no longer fit for consumption. The appellant contended that they had allowed storage based on permission granted by the respondent to offload the importer's goods. The appellant challenged the duty demand, interest, and penalty in the appeal, highlighting the lack of fault on their part. The Tribunal noted the respondent's inaction in removing the goods stored at their direction and failure to take steps to dispose of the goods if abandoned by the importer. Consequently, the Tribunal directed the respondent to remove the goods from the appellant's warehouses within four weeks from the date of the order.

3. The Tribunal found no reason or justification for the goods to remain in the appellant's premises and issued a clear directive for their removal. The decision aimed to address the appellant's concerns regarding the unjust duty demand, interest, and penalty imposed by the respondent. By ordering the removal of goods within a specified timeframe, the Tribunal sought to resolve the dispute and alleviate the audit queries faced by the appellant. The judgment emphasized the importance of timely action and adherence to procedural rules in handling bonded cargo stored in warehouses, ensuring fair treatment and accountability in such matters.

Conclusion:
The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Bangalore addressed the issues surrounding the removal of goods stored in the appellant's warehouse, the duty demand, interest, and penalty imposed by the respondent, and the failure of the respondent to take necessary steps in handling the stored goods. The Tribunal's decision to direct the removal of goods within a specified timeframe aimed to resolve the dispute and alleviate the appellant's audit concerns, emphasizing the importance of procedural compliance and fair treatment in such matters.

← Previous Next →