9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Whether remission of duty can be considered for warehouse goods in cases where the remission applications had been filed after expiry of the warehousing period. Analysis: The two appeals were filed against the Order-in-Appeal Nos. 311/2003-Cus. & 312/2003-Cus. passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Bangalore. The issue involved was whether remission of duty can be considered for warehouse goods when the remission applications were filed after the warehousing period expired. The appellants were manufacturers of 'Laminated Wood Panels' stored in a Private Bonded Warehouse under Section 61 of the Customs Act, 1962. The goods got damaged before clearance, but after the warehousing period. The Original authority demanded duty, interest, and imposed a penalty. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the order. The learned Advocate argued that remission of duty is permissible under Section 23(1) of the Customs Act for goods lost or destroyed before clearance for home consumption. He contended that the expired warehousing period should not bar remission. Referring to legal precedents, he highlighted that goods remaining in a warehouse after the warehousing period are still considered 'warehoused goods'. The Tribunal and the Apex Court have supported the interpretation that remission is applicable to goods lost or destroyed before clearance for home consumption, irrespective of the warehousing period. The Advocate emphasized that the Commissioner (Appeals) erred in applying a judgment not relevant to the remission issue. He cited a High Court decision supporting remission under Section 23. Analyzing Section 23 of the Customs Act, it was found that all conditions for remission were met in the case. The goods were imported, warehoused, and destroyed before clearance for home consumption. The rejection of remission due to the expired warehousing period was deemed biased against the appellant. The law does not prohibit remission applications after the warehousing period. Imposing duty in such cases would be harsh, considering the appellant's total loss. The lawmakers likely avoided stringent conditions for remission due to such contingencies. The Tribunal agreed with the Advocate's arguments and allowed the appeals with consequential relief. In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants, emphasizing that remission of duty under Section 23(1) of the Customs Act is applicable to goods lost or destroyed before clearance for home consumption, regardless of the warehousing period. The decision highlighted the importance of considering the circumstances of each case and avoiding undue harshness in demanding duty on goods that are irreversibly damaged.
|
