2022 (1) TMI 916 - HC - Customs

Seeking extension of warehousing period - It is submitted that the application for extension of warehousing under Section 61 of the Act has been made long after the notice under Section 72(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 was issued - HELD THAT - The petitioner may have a genuine case for extension of time, considering the fact that the petitioner has also applied for setting up of private warehousing facility under Section 58 of the Customs Act, 1962. There are contributing factors on account of two lockdowns imposed in Tamil Nadu due to outbreak of Covid 19 Pandemic. Writ Petitions disposed off without expressing any opinion on merits by directing the first respondent to pass appropriate orders on the representation dated 22.09.2021 of the petitioner filed under Section 61 of the Customs Act, 1962 - Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of Taken Over notice issued by the second respondent.
2. Direction to the 1st Respondent to hear the petitioner and dispose of the application filed under Section 61(1) of the Customs Act, 1962.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner imported Goods in June 2019, and the warehousing period expired in June 2020 during the Covid-19 lockdown. The respondent issued a notice under Section 72(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 in January 2021. The petitioner requested an extension of warehousing under Section 61 of the Act on 22.09.2021. The Senior Standing Counsel argued that the extension application was made after the notice was issued, hence lacks merit.

2. The court acknowledged the petitioner's genuine need for an extension, especially considering the application for a private warehousing facility under Section 58 of the Customs Act, 1962. The judge refrained from expressing an opinion on the merits but directed the first respondent to decide on the representation dated 22.09.2021 within 15 days. The court ordered to keep the proposed action under the impugned notice on hold during this period.

3. The judgment disposed of the Writ Petitions with the directive for the first respondent to act promptly on the petitioner's representation. The court emphasized the impact of Covid-19 lockdowns on the petitioner's situation and the need for a fair consideration of the extension request under Section 61 of the Customs Act, 1962. The decision was made to ensure procedural fairness and timely resolution of the matter.

4. Overall, the judgment focused on balancing the petitioner's legitimate concerns with procedural requirements under the Customs Act, 1962. By directing the first respondent to address the extension request promptly, the court aimed to provide a fair opportunity for the petitioner to present their case and obtain a decision within a reasonable timeframe. The judgment highlighted the exceptional circumstances surrounding the Covid-19 pandemic and its impact on importers, emphasizing the need for flexibility and understanding in such situations.