9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (4) TMI 568X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... une 2011. The licence has not thereafter been renewed since the Petitioner did not apply for renewal. 2. Between June 2008 and May 2011, the Petitioner imported aviation parts which were warehoused in its Private Bonded Warehouse without the payment of duty after filing in-bond Bills of Entry. The Petitioner executed bonds in respect of thirteen such consignments which have been set out in paragraph 6 of the Petition. It has been stated that the goods covered by the bonds belong to Dassault Aviation, France and were imported for stock and sale to the Indian owners of Dassault Aircraft coming into or transiting through India. 3. By a letter dated 26 April 2011, the Petitioner sought an extension of the bond period in respect of s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2011 and 23 January 2012. A direction has been sought to allow the Petitioner to transfer the goods covered under eight bonds to an SEZ at Chennai. 5. In the affidavit in reply filed by the Deputy Commissioner of Customs, it has been stated that of the eight bonds in respect of which the dispute now survives, the Petitioner cleared a part of the consignments covered by the bonds at Sr. Nos. 1, 2 and 3 within the initial warehousing period. After the completion of the warehousing period of one year, the period was extended six times for the bond at Sr. No. 1 and three times for Sr. No. 2. The period was extended once for the bonds at Sr. Nos. 3, 4, 5 and 6. As the warehousing period expired, demand notices were issued under Section 72( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ound that the application for extension of the warehousing period was submitted much after the expiry of the warehousing period and no valid reasons were shown. The subsequent order which has been communicated to the Petitioner on 23 January 2012 is essentially consequential upon the first. The decision which has been communicated to the Petitioner on 20 June 2011 has been arrived at without furnishing to the Petitioner an opportunity of being heard. That decision involved civil consequences since the letter indicated that the Petitioner has to pay duty, interest and penalty. The Petitioner has relied upon the circular issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs on 14 January 2003 which states that in the event that an importer makes ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
