9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (4) TMI 139 - AT - CustomsDuty liability on warehoused goods under prevailing rate on the date - Goods cleared from Customs bonded warehouse - Application of Section 15 of the Customs Act, 1962 - Department claimed that duty liability was worked out as applicable at the time of warehousing of the goods but appellant claiming to be charged under prevailing rate on the date - Held that - the duty liability should be on the date of clearance of the consignment from Custom bonded warehouse. The appellant has no case, the bond executed for storage of warehoused goods in the warehouse, expired on 24-01-2003. Hence, the goods cannot be said to have been bonded or warehoused goods for which only provisions of Section 15 of the Customs Act apply. - Decided against the appellant
Issues: Duty liability on warehoused goods
Analysis: The appeal was directed against Order-in-Appeal No. 30/04-AP misc/(ACC) dated 24/02/2004. Despite the absence of the appellant or any request for adjournment, the appeal was taken up for disposal due to its age. The issue revolved around the duty liability on warehoused goods under Section 59 of the Customs Act, 1962. The appellant contended that duty liability should be determined based on the prevailing rate at the time of clearance from the Customs bonded warehouse, invoking Section 15 of the Customs Act, 1962. However, it was noted that the bond for storage of the warehoused goods had expired on 24-01-2003, rendering the goods no longer bonded or warehoused. Therefore, the provisions of Section 15 were deemed inapplicable. The first appellate authority concurred with this view, emphasizing that when the bond period expires, the goods cease to be considered as warehoused goods, making Section 15 irrelevant. The appellant failed to address this crucial issue, leading to the rejection of their contention. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the first appellate authority's decision, deeming it correct and legally sound. Consequently, the impugned order was upheld as valid, legal, and free from any defects, warranting no intervention. As a result, the appeal was rejected.
|
