9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (1) TMI 368X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ower authorities held the claim to be time-barred under Section 27 of the Customs Act. 2. After examining the records and hearing both sides, I find that the appellant had imported a consignment of what was declared as Re-Rollable Non-Alloy Steel Scrap . They filed Bill of Entry dated 7-6-2002 for warehousing the goods. The Customs authorities doubted the correctness of the importer s declaration and got samples of the goods tested by the National Metallurgical Laboratory (NML). The test report of NML was to the effect that the goods could be considered as a mixture of usable Alloy and Non-Alloy Steel Tubes/Pipes . On the basis of this report, the Customs authorities refused to grant the benefit of concessional rate of duty claimed by t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... This submission is not contested. 4. However, the question before me is whether the subject claim for refund of demurrage charges is maintainable before the Customs authorities on the facts of this case. The Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Shipping Corporation of India (supra) dealt with a case in which an importer was constrained to pay demurrage charges in respect of a consignment on account of detention and confiscation of the goods by the Customs authorities. The detention and confiscation were held illegal by the Delhi High Court. The Apex Court, on these facts, held that the Customs authorities were liable to pay the importer the demurrage charges, which they had paid to the custodians of the goods. In the facts of the case, t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d on the Department to compensate the appellant for the demurrage. Admittedly, the demurrage charges were paid to the Port Trust (said to be the Custodian of the goods during the relevant period) and it is up to the Port Trust to consider any application of the importer for refund of such charges. The refund claim filed with the Customs Department was only liable to be rejected as not maintainable. It is noticed that the lower authorities rejected the claim as time-barred as if they would have allowed the claim, had it been within the period of 6 months from the dale of payment of demurrage charges. Obviously, the authorities have acted under a grossly erroneous perception, but, woefully enough, the Department has not chosen to challenge th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
