2010 (4) TMI 427 - HC - Customs

Remission of duty- application was made on 31-1-2002 by contending that the resin impregnated paper which were stored in the ware house had lost its shelf life and had become unfit for use on account of non-availability of orders for clearance and accordingly an application for remiss of duty was made. The request for remission of duty was rejected since the bond was extended upto 31-12-2001 and there was no provision for such remission of duty during the period of such extention. The respondent was directed to deposit duty along with interest by letter dated 1-2-2002 to which the respondent had responded by con tending that show cause notice has to be issued. Thereafter show cause notice was also issued to the respondent claiming duty and interest and penalty. Held that- expression cannot extend to period after lapse of extended period merely because goods not cleared. Case of goods improperly removed as per section 72(1)(b). Remission not available.

Summary

Issues:
(i) Interpretation of Sec. 23(1) of the Customs Act, 1961
(ii) Action based on revenue bias
(iii) Permissibility of duty remission after the warehousing period
(iv) Duty remission on destroyed goods before clearance

Analysis:
Issue (i): The appeal challenges the interpretation of Sec. 23(1) of the Customs Act, 1961. The respondent, a holder of a Private Bonded Warehouse License, imported raw materials stored in a warehouse. The respondent sought remission of duty after the extended period, which was rejected by the authorities. The Tribunal allowed the appeal, citing destruction of goods before clearance. However, the Court held that Sec. 23 applies only before clearance for home consumption, not after the extended period lapses.

Issue (ii): The appeal questions the Tribunal's view on revenue bias. The respondent contended that the goods remained in the warehouse and were destroyed before clearance. The authorities rejected the remission application, leading to a penalty. The Court analyzed the facts and determined that the circumstances did not align with Sec. 23 requirements, thus justifying the demand for duty payment.

Issue (iii): The issue involves the permissibility of duty remission post-warehousing period. The respondent's application for remission post-extension was denied by the authorities. The Court emphasized that Sec. 23 applies before clearance for home consumption or before the extended period lapses. The respondent's failure to clear the goods within the stipulated time did not warrant remission post-extension.

Issue (iv): The final issue pertains to duty remission on destroyed goods before clearance. The respondent's appeal for remission post-extension was allowed by the Tribunal. However, the Court held that the circumstances did not meet Sec. 23 criteria as the goods were not destroyed before clearance. The Court referred to relevant legal provisions and previous judgments to support the decision to uphold the authorities' duty demand.

In conclusion, the Court allowed the appeal in favor of the revenue, emphasizing that the circumstances did not align with Sec. 23 provisions for duty remission post-warehousing period. The judgment highlighted the importance of complying with customs regulations and the timing of duty remission applications under the Customs Act, 1961.