2017 (7) TMI 5 - AT - Customs

Warehousing of goods - extension for warehousing period not sought for - contravention of provisions of Sections 61 & 72 of the Customs Act, 1962 read with provisions of N/N. 140/91-Cus dated 22.10.91, as amended - Held that - the EOU/EHTP/STP units are required to obtain private bonded warehousing licence u/s 58 of the Customs Act. The said licence is valid for a period of 5 years and the units are required to apply for renewal after every 5 years. The Board in order to obviate the difficulties of the EOU/EHTP/STP units has decided to allow extension of warehousing of all the capital goods installed or put into use, simultaneously at the time of renewal of warehousing licences irrespective of the fact that the capital goods are due for extension or not. The period of extension would be allowed for such a period so that the capital goods need further extension only on the date of renewal of warehousing license. The period of extension, therefore may be adjusted accordingly for every piece of capital goods. However the maximum period of extension at a time would not be allowed for a period for more than five years - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
Violation of Customs Act, 1962 - Sections 61 & 72, Confiscation of capital goods, Imposition of penalty, Appeal against Order-in-Original.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed by the Revenue against an order imposing a penalty on the assessee under Section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962 for violations of Sections 61 & 72 of the Act. The appellants, an STPI unit, imported capital goods without duty payment under specific notifications. Customs officers found that certain capital goods exceeded their warehousing period without extension, leading to contravention of Customs Act provisions. The lower authority confiscated the goods, imposed a fine, and penalty. The Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed duty and interest but set aside confiscation, redemption fine, and penalty. The Revenue challenged this order.

The learned AR argued that the impugned order is legally unsustainable. He emphasized the distinction between renewal of warehousing license and extension of warehousing period for goods, stating they are separate processes handled by different Customs officers. On the other hand, the counsel for the assessee contended that the Circular issued by the CBEC allowed simultaneous extension of warehousing period with license renewal, citing various legal precedents to support the binding nature of Board Circulars on Departmental Officers.

After considering both parties' submissions and reviewing the record, the Tribunal found no fault with the impugned order. It upheld the order based on the Circular issued by the Board, which clarified the extension of warehousing period for capital goods during license renewal. The Tribunal highlighted the specific provision of the Circular allowing such extensions to avoid difficulties for STPI units. Citing previous legal decisions, the Tribunal concluded that the Circular was binding on the Department, affirming the Commissioner (Appeals) decision and dismissing the Revenue's appeal.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's judgment emphasized the importance of following Board Circulars in customs matters and upheld the relief granted to the assessee based on the Circular's provisions. The decision clarified the process of extending warehousing periods for capital goods during license renewals and highlighted the legal precedents supporting the binding nature of Board Circulars on Customs Department officers.