1989 (9) TMI 247 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
- Interpretation of Sections 15(1)(a) and 15(1)(b) of the Customs Act
- Application of Sections 17, 18, 46, and 49 in relation to imported goods
- Dispute over the assessment of countervailing duty on imported goods cleared from a warehouse
- Legal implications of voluntary warehousing under Chapter IX of the Act

Analysis:

The appeal in this case was filed under Section 129-A(1) of the Customs Act against an order-in-appeal. The appellants had imported Industrial Nylon yarn with proper licenses but faced delays in clearance due to investigations by DRI and SIIB. The countervailing duty on the goods increased during this period, leading to a dispute over the assessment of duty. The appellants sought levy of duty at the rate prevailing when the bills of entry were filed. The Collector of Customs (Appeals) rejected their claim, citing the provisions of Section 15(1)(b) of the Customs Act and stating that his forum lacked the power to provide relief based on equity.

Shri P.S. Bedi, representing the appellants, argued that the Department should have completed duty assessment promptly as per Section 70 and that the goods were detained for investigation without penal action. He emphasized Sections 17, 18, and 49, asserting that the duty should be assessed based on the date of bill of entry presentation. Bedi contended that the goods were not warehoused goods under Section 49 and should be assessed accordingly, seeking relief based on Supreme Court rulings.

The Departmental Representative, Shri S. Chakraborti, maintained that Section 15(1)(b) was applicable, linking the duty valuation to the date of physical removal from the warehouse. Upon review, the Tribunal found that the appellants voluntarily warehoused the goods under Chapter IX, executing a bond and submitting ex-bond bills of entry for clearance. As such, Section 15(1)(b) applied, and the duty assessment was correct. The Tribunal upheld the lower authorities' decision, concluding that the appeal lacked merit and was rejected.

In summary, the judgment delved into the interpretation of relevant sections of the Customs Act, the application of duty assessment procedures to imported goods, and the legal implications of voluntary warehousing. The Tribunal affirmed the duty valuation based on the date of goods' removal from the warehouse, dismissing the appeal based on the appellants' voluntary warehousing actions and the applicability of Section 15(1)(b) in the case.