9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (7) TMI 223X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... duty. 2. Notice was issued by the Additional Commissioner of Customs, Aurangabad to appellant, alleging that since the goods stayed in the bonded warehouse beyond thirty days, interest under sub-section (3) of Section 61 of the Customs Act, was payable for the period for which the goods remained in the warehouse exceeding seven days from the return of the bill of entry for warehousing. The Additional Commissioner of Aurangabad after hearing the importer found that the Customs House at Mumbai had permitted the importer to keep the goods in a bonded warehouse till 29th March, 1995, and that the interest was to be charged according to the order of Assistant Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai, from 30th March, 1995. He said that the Customs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... before him. 5. The Departmental Representative contends that it could not be said that the order under Section 61 of the Act attained finality. Rate of duty applicable for goods to be removed from a bonded warehouse from the date of such removal provided under Section 15. Therefore, the authorities at Aurangabad were justified in applying the provisions of law. He disputes the contention of the appellant that the notice, and the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) by the Department did not include in its scope the question of the order passed under Section 61 of the Act by Mumbai Custom House. 6. The Commissioner (Appeals) is no doubt partially right in saying that the jurisdictional officer at Aurangabad is competent to r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... revised by the officers at Aurangabad. 7. Section 60 of the Act provides that when the provisions of Section 59 of the Act have been complied with, proper officer may make an order permitting the deposit of the goods in a warehouse. The order made by the Assistant Commissioner at Mumbai Customs House was an order under this Section. The order passed under this section, therefore, would have to set aside by appropriate process of law before it could be substituted by any other order. We do not consider it necessary to go into the question of whether such an order requires to be set aside by resorting to the appellant process. The notice issued to the appellant did not seek to set aside this order. It proceeded on the assumption that t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
