9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Eligibility of importers for refund of interest paid on consignments imported before the amendment of Section 61 of the Customs Act, 1962. Detailed Analysis: The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi arose from the Collector (Appeals) setting aside the Assistant Collector's rejection of the respondents' claims for a refund of interest paid under Section 61 of the Customs Act, 1962. The main issue for determination was the eligibility of importers to obtain a refund of interest paid on consignments imported before the amendment of Section 61 on 13-5-1983, which introduced provisions for payment of interest on warehoused goods. The case involved M/s. J.K. Synthetics Ltd., Kota, importing goods between May 1982 to March 1983 and depositing them in a public bonded warehouse under Section 60 of the Customs Act. The respondents sought an extension of the warehousing period for one year and agreed to pay interest for the extended period beyond the initial three months. The goods were cleared after payment of interest under protest, and refund claims were filed but rejected by the Assistant Collector. The lower appellate authority allowed the appeal, holding that the law applicable at the time of warehousing would apply, i.e., Section 61 prior to its amendment, which did not provide for payment of interest. The Department appealed this decision. The Tribunal considered the provisions of Section 61(2) of the Customs Act, which allowed for the charging of interest on goods remaining warehoused beyond specified periods. The Tribunal noted that the amendment to Section 61 did not indicate retrospective application and lacked any saving provision. Therefore, the general principle of statutory construction dictates a prospective interpretation unless expressly made retrospective. The Tribunal concluded that the law in force at the time of warehousing, i.e., Section 61 before the amendment, applied to the case, absolving the importers from paying interest. The Tribunal rejected the argument that the respondents were bound by their agreement to pay interest, as it was contrary to law and unenforceable. One member of the Tribunal dissented, disagreeing with the majority decision. The dissenting member argued that the amendment to Section 61 reduced the bonding period from one year to three months and provided for charging interest on duty for the extended warehousing period. In this case, the warehousing period was extended after the amendment, and interest was charged for the extended period beyond one year. The dissenting member upheld the Assistant Collector's decision to charge interest for the extended period, considering it a payment for delayed duty payment due to the extension of the warehousing period. Consequently, the dissenting member set aside the lower appellate authority's decision and allowed the appeal by the Revenue. In conclusion, the majority of the Tribunal upheld the lower appellate authority's decision, dismissing the Department's appeal. The dissenting member's opinion was noted but did not sway the majority decision, resulting in the appeal being dismissed.
|
