9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (3) TMI 776X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... use without payment of duty pending clearance. Accordingly, the above said four Bills of entry were permitted to be kept in the bonded ware house by the second respondent. Later, the petitioner company was declared as sick unit and since the goods were not cleared, the second respondent issued a detention notice, dated 15.4.2008 under Section 72(1) of the Act. As per Section 61(1) (b) of the Act, warehoused goods can remain in the bonded warehouse for a period of one year until payment of duty with reduced period for the perishable goods and the interest is payable for the period from the expiry of 90 days till the date of payment of duty on the warehoused goods. Thereafter, even after lapse of permitted period of one year, since the petitioner had not cleared the goods, a notice was issued by the second respondent demanding customs duty aggregating Rs. 3,78,81,263/- along with interest @ 15% p.a. under Section 72(1) of the Act. However, pursuant to the said notice, it appears that the petitioner sought for extension of warehousing period for further period of one year. Since the bond interest payable under Section 61(2)(i) & (ii) of the Act read with Board s Circular No.47/2002, d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing, till the expiry of five years; (aa) in the case of goods other than capital goods intended for use in any hundred per cent export-oriented undertaking, till the expiry of three years; and (b) in the case of any other goods, till the expiry of one year, after the date on which the proper officer has made an order under Section 60 permitting the deposit of the goods in a warehouse: Provided that (i) * * * (A)-(B) * * * (ii) in the case of any goods referred to in Clause (b), if they are likely to deteriorate, the aforesaid period of one year may be reduced by the Commissioner of Customs to such shorter period as he may deem fit: * * * 72. Goods improperly removed from warehouse, etc. (1) In any of the following cases, that is to say, (a) * * * (b) where any warehoused goods have not been removed from a warehouse at the expiration of the period during which such goods are permitted under Section 61 to remain in a warehou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... titioner agreed that the said bond can be enforced by the second respondent for recovery action under Section 142 of the Act. Though, more than 16 years have passed since then, the goods still remained unclear insider the warehouse, which prompted the second respondent to issue notice, dated 25.3.2008 under Section 72(1) of the Act demanding customs duty after applying the rate of duty prevalent on the last date of validity period namely, 22.7.1997 along with interest @ 15% therein, followed by detention notice, dated 15.4.2008. The petitioner failed to discharge its duty by not paying the duty due on the warehoused goods as undertaken by it. Thereafter as could be seen from the records, it appears that the detained goods were sold in e-auction held on 23.12.2011 for Rs. 2,26,55,556/- to one Sri Shiva Impex, Chennai, which stood as highest bidder. However, the said sale proceedings came to be cancelled since the bidder had not fulfilled the terms. 6. The learned senior counsel, placing reliance on the Circular dated 14.1.2003 would contend that though the Statute fixed the maximum period of warehousing as one year, however the Circular issued by the Board under Section 151-A of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s thereof, would only establish that the petitioner company has been dragging on the proceedings in order to frustrate the attempt of the respondents in recovering the duty by stalling the proceedings. In fact, the third respondent, in its order impugned in the writ petition, has categorically mentioned that the petitioner continued to reiterate the request of re-export on 26.9.2011, but no concrete evidence by way of documents such as invoice, agreement, etc., have been produced by the petitioner to prove the claim and that the petitioner has failed to discharge the duty due on the warehoused goods as undertaken by it vide Bond executed by it and delayed the payment of customs duty and other charges for the past 16 years. In para 9 of the impugned order, the third respondent has mentioned to the following effect: "9. As regards your request for re-export, it is stated that such request entails extension by the competent authorities concerned in view of the fact that under Section 69 of the Customs Act, 1962 any warehoused goods can be exported to a place outside India without payment of duty subject to conditions as stipulated therein whereas in the instant case, the warehousing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gh demand notices under Section 72 had been issued upon expiry of the initial or the extended period of warehousing. The circular then goes on to read: "The matter has been examined in the Board. It has been decided that in case an importer makes a request to permit re-export of the goods under Section 69 of the Customs Act, 1962, such a request may be allowed even if the permitted period for bonding has expired and demand notice has been issued, or it has been decided to put the goods under auction. Before permitting re-export in each such case, however, it will be necessary to extend the period of warehousing under Section 61 of the Customs Act to enable the importer to export the goods within the permitted period of warehousing." "19. The Circular dated 29-7-2002 is, however, a general circular advising the Chief Commissioner to be liberal in granting extension under Section 61 of the Act. Relying on the aforequoted paragraph of the Circular of 14-1-2003, Mr Sunil Kumar has argued that the maximum period visualised under Section 61 of the Act could, therefore, have been exceeded. "20. Mr Gaurav Agrawal has raised a larger issue whether the circulars aforesaid could authorise ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
