2016 (2) TMI 541 - AT - Customs

Remission of duty on warehoused goods - Demand of duty on goods stocked in Duty Free Shops (DFS) whose Bond period had expired - Private Bonded Warehouse in Domestic Tariff Area (DTA) - damage to the goods in the arrival hall DFSs due to unprecedented floods on 26 th July, 2005. - they applied for waiver of Custom duty and for permission to destroy the goods rendered unfit. They wrote on 25/2/2008 for relinquishment of the title to the flood affected goods and remission of duty. Held that - In the normal course, remission of duty under Section 68 of the Customs Act is granted if there is loss on account of natural causes. However relinquishment of title and consequent remission of duty is not permissible where an offence has been committed. In the present case offence of not extending the bond period was committed and such goods are to be treated as goods improperly removed in terms of Section 72(1)(b) for violation of Section 61(1)(b) as goods had not been removed before the expiry of the bond period. - Appeal dismissed - Decided against the appellant.

Issues Involved:
1. Demand of duty on goods stocked in Duty Free Shops (DFS) whose Bond period had expired.
2. Procedure and records maintenance for goods transferred to DFS.
3. Remission of duty for flood-damaged goods.
4. Applicability of previous judgments and legal precedents.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Demand of Duty on Goods Stocked in DFS Whose Bond Period Had Expired:
The core issue in the appeal was the demand of duty on goods in DFS after the bond period expired. The appellant contended that once goods were transferred to DFS from the Domestic Tariff Area (DTA) warehouse, the bond was closed, and no further correlation with the bond or Bill of Entry was required. However, the tribunal found this argument factually and legally incorrect. The tribunal emphasized that the goods remained bonded under Section 58 of the Customs Act until sold, and the bond was not canceled until all goods were accounted for. The tribunal upheld the demand for duty, citing that the goods were improperly removed as they remained warehoused beyond the bond period, violating Section 61(1)(b) of the Customs Act.

2. Procedure and Records Maintenance for Goods Transferred to DFS:
The tribunal examined the procedural requirements for maintaining records of goods transferred to DFS. According to Standing Orders dated 13/5/1969 and 30/3/2004, the goods were to be transferred in bond to DFS, and detailed records, including stock registers and sale vouchers, were to be maintained. The tribunal noted that the appellant had started maintaining stock bond-wise from September 2004, contradicting their claim that such maintenance was unnecessary. The tribunal stressed the necessity of maintaining records for each bond until the bond was exhausted and canceled by the Assistant Commissioner/Dy. Commissioner of Customs.

3. Remission of Duty for Flood-Damaged Goods:
The appellant sought remission of duty for goods damaged during floods on 26th July 2005, which was rejected by Customs. The tribunal noted that no appeal was filed against this rejection. The tribunal highlighted that remission under Section 68 of the Customs Act is not permissible if an offence, such as not extending the bond period, was committed. The goods were deemed improperly removed under Section 72(1)(b) due to the expired bond period, and thus, remission of duty was not allowed.

4. Applicability of Previous Judgments and Legal Precedents:
The appellant cited previous judgments, including a CESTAT order in a similar case at Goa and a Supreme Court decision regarding DFS at Bangalore International Airport, to support their case. However, the tribunal distinguished these cases, noting that the Supreme Court decision related to the applicability of sales tax/VAT on DFS goods, not the customs duty issue at hand. The tribunal also referenced the Kesoram Rayon case, where the Supreme Court held that goods not removed within the permissible period are treated as improperly removed, supporting the tribunal's decision. Additionally, the tribunal referred to the Karnataka High Court's decision in Decorative Laminates (I) Pvt. Ltd., reinforcing that remission is not applicable for goods not cleared within the permitted warehousing period.

Conclusion:
The tribunal upheld the impugned order, confirming the demand for duty on the goods in DFS due to the expired bond period. The appeal was dismissed, and the stay application and cross objections were also disposed of. The tribunal's decision was based on a thorough examination of procedural requirements, legal precedents, and the specific facts of the case.

← Previous Next →