9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Liability of customs duty on goods found short after warehousing. Analysis: The case involved an appeal against an order of the Addl. Collector of Customs regarding the liability of paying customs duty on goods found short after warehousing. The appellant, a company importing computer components, had warehoused the goods after initial examination at the airport. Subsequently, discrepancies were found in the quantity of certain components, leading to a demand for customs duty amounting to Rs. 91,358. The appellant argued that they should not be liable for duty as the goods remained under customs supervision and were transported under customs control. The respondent contended that the appellant had executed a warehousing bond requiring proper accounting and payment of duty on the warehoused goods. The consultant for the appellant argued that since the goods were under customs supervision throughout, and the deficiency was noticed after warehousing orders were made, the duty should not be imposed on the appellant. On the other hand, the JDR for the respondent maintained that the deficiency likely occurred during transport, and the appellant was bound by the warehousing bond to account for and pay duty on the goods found short. Upon considering the arguments, the Tribunal referred to a previous case law and observed that when goods are removed after executing a bond under Section 59 of the Customs Act, the duty liability falls on the importer if the goods were examined before removal and found to be in order. The Tribunal upheld the lower authorities' decision to demand duty on the goods found short, as the appellant had executed a warehousing bond and failed to properly account for the discrepancy in quantity. Consequently, the appeal was rejected, affirming the imposition of customs duty on the goods found short after warehousing.
|
