9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
- Appeal against Order-in-Appeal No. 281/2003 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Bangalore regarding imported "Memory Chips" warehoused by the appellants. - Request for extension of warehousing period and subsequent relinquishment of title under section 23(2) of the Customs Act. - Rejection of permission to re-export goods, demand of duty, and imposition of penalty. - Interpretation of Section 68 of the Customs Act, 1962 in light of amendments and relevant case laws. - Discrepancies in findings by the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Original Authority. Analysis: The case involves an appeal against the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) regarding imported "Memory Chips" warehoused by the appellants. The appellants applied for an extension of the warehousing period, but there was no response from the Department. Subsequently, they relinquished the title of the goods under section 23(2) of the Customs Act. The lower authority rejected the request for re-exporting the goods, confirmed the duty demand, and imposed a penalty. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the decision, leading to the appellants challenging the Order-in-Appeal. During the proceedings, the appellants argued that the Department's lack of response to the extension request implied tacit approval for continued storage beyond the warehousing period. They also cited the Supreme Court's interpretation of duty liability upon actual removal of goods from the warehouse. Additionally, they relied on the amended Section 68 of the Customs Act, which allows for relinquishment of title before goods are removed, thereby exempting duty payment. The appellants highlighted relevant case laws supporting their stance. Upon reviewing the case records, it was found that the appellants did seek an extension of the warehousing period, contrary to the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals). The rejection of permission to re-export the goods and the subsequent duty demand were noted. However, the appellants' submission for relinquishment under the amended Section 68 was deemed acceptable. The Proviso to Section 68 exempts duty payment if title is relinquished before clearance for home consumption. Consequently, no duty, interest, or penalty was deemed payable in this case. The appeal was allowed, providing the appellants with consequential relief based on the interpretation of the relevant legal provisions and amendments. In conclusion, the discrepancies in the findings of the authorities were addressed, and the appellants' reliance on the amended Section 68 and related case laws played a crucial role in the favorable judgment allowing the appeal and relieving the appellants from duty payment, interest, and penalty.
|
