2007 (12) TMI 14 - HC - Customs

Interest on warehoused goods Clearance from warehouse beyond normal time Held that the time stipulated u/s 61 to take delivery of the goods from the warehouse has to be reckoned only from the day on which the physical deposit was made at warehouse and not from the date of goods entering the port

Summary

Issues:
Calculation of interest under Section 61 of the Customs Act 1962 based on the actual date of deposit of goods in the warehouse at Toranagallu versus the date of entry of goods at Chennai Port.

Analysis:
The case involved a dispute regarding the calculation of interest leviable under Section 61 of the Customs Act 1962. The respondent, a steel manufacturer, imported goods that entered India at Chennai port and were transported to a warehouse at Toranagallu. The appellant department levied interest for the delay in clearing the goods beyond the prescribed period under Section 61(1) of the Act. The respondent paid the interest but later claimed a refund, arguing that the interest was collected in excess. The Asst. Commissioner rejected the refund claims, stating that the interest period should be calculated from the date the goods entered Chennai Port. The respondent appealed to various authorities, leading to the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) allowing the appeals and ordering a refund based on the date of physical deposit at Toranagallu.

The main contention raised by the appellant was that Section 59 of the Act mandated considering the date of entry of goods at Chennai Port for calculating interest. The appellant argued that since the goods were under the department's control upon entry at the port, the interest period should commence from that date. However, the respondent's counsel countered this by emphasizing that the actual deposit of goods in the Toranagallu warehouse should be the starting point for interest calculation. The counsel relied on specific sections of the Customs Act defining warehouse goods as those physically deposited in a warehouse, which in this case, was Toranagallu and not Chennai Port.

The High Court analyzed the facts and arguments presented by both parties. It noted that the physical delivery of goods occurred at Toranagallu, not at Chennai Port, and that the goods were under the supervision of the respondent during transportation to the warehouse. The Court concluded that the time stipulated under Section 61 of the Act for taking delivery of goods should be reckoned from the actual deposit at Toranagallu and not from the entry of goods at Chennai Port. Therefore, it upheld the Tribunal's decision to allow the respondent's appeals for a refund of the excess interest paid.

In the final judgment, the High Court dismissed the appeal by the department, stating that there was no question of law to interfere with the Tribunal's findings. Additionally, the Court noted that the department had already refunded the claim to the respondent, but the issue of refunding without prejudice to the department's right to challenge the Tribunal's orders was not considered as the appeal was dismissed on its merits.