9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (3) TMI 776X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ubject to payment of interest on the amount of duty on the warehoused goods towards permissible period, however, it is to be noted that mere seeking for extension of the period does not serve the purpose and there should be a reasonable cause has to be shown for such extension. In this case, the petitioner company, right from the inception, has been seeking for extension of the warehousing period from time to time though citing reasons that the company was declared sick, etc., but there was no genuineness in its attempt in clearing the goods even after expiry of extended period. Petitioner company had no intention, whatsoever to clear the goods, but has been attempting throughout one and half a decade long period to stall the disposal of these uncleared time-expired bonded goods. - writ petition is liable to be dismissed for want of merits. - Following decision of Union of India v. Shakti LPG Ltd. [2008 (2) TMI 25 - SUPREME COURT] - Decided against assessee. - Writ Petition No.15103 of 2014 And M.P.No.1 of 2014 - - - Dated:- 4-3-2015 - The Honourable Mr. Justice S. Vaidyanathan,J. For the Petitioner : Mr. Vijay Narayan, SC For the Respondent : P. Saravana Sowmiyan, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d and in the mean time, the Private Bonded Warehouse Licence granted to M/s.Binny Lorze Ltd., Chennai where the said goods were bonded has not been renewed since 24.3.2009. The imported goods were permitted to be deposited in a public bonded warehouse by the second respondent under Section 60 of the Act as the petitioner had executed a double duty bond, undertaking to pay the duty, interest, etc., and clear the goods within the permissible bonding period and agreed to honour their commitment failing which the petitioner 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e, as the said officer may select. 5. It is not in dispute that the present case would fall within the scope of Section 61(1)(b) of the Act. The facts of the case would reveal that the machineries and spare parts imported by the petitioner were warehoused initially for a period of one year, i.e. between 23.7.1996 till 22.7.1997. Thereafter, since the warehoused goods were not cleared within the above said permitted period of one year, a notice was issued by the second respondent demanding customs duty aggregating ₹ 3,78,81,263/- along with interest at 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, dated 20.7.2002 was not paid, the request made by the petitioner for extension of the period was not considered and accordingly, a notice dated 15.4.2008 was issued under Section 72(2) of the Act, detaining the said goods for disposal with grace period of 5 days for payment of duties and interest. Thereafter also, the petitioner made ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch 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. 7. A perusal of the above would reveal that the request for re-export of the goods could be allowed even if the maximum period of warehousing had expired and demand notices had been issued and even if it had been decided to put the goods to auction. However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered view that the above said circular would not apply to the present case, inasmuch as the warehoused goods were not only decided to put on auction, but also they were already put to e-auction held on 23.12.2011 and sold for ₹ 2,26,55,556/- to one Sri Shiva Impex, Chennai, which stood as highest bidder. Of-course, it is true that the said sale proceedings were subsequently cancelled, but, this cannot make any favour to the petitioner company to claim for extension of the period. It is no doubt true that warehousing is permissible even beyond the period fixed by the statute, subject to payment of interest on the amount of duty on the warehoused good ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en ascertained from the Asst.Commissioner of Customs, Warehouse and Disposal unit that the said goods were sold in an e-auction held on 23.12.2011 for ₹ 2,26,55,556/-. As such your request to postpone e-auction in this regard cannot be acceded to at this juncture in view of the same being ultra vires. 8. From the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case as discussed above, I am of the view that the petitioner company had no intention, whatsoever to clear the goods, but has been attempting throughout one and half a decade long period to stall the disposal of these uncleared time-expired bonded goods. 9. Further, in a very similar set of facts and circumstances, the Hon ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. Shakti LPG Ltd., (2008) 4 SCC 496, has ruled out the applicability of the so-called Circular, dated 14.1.2003 on which, the learned senior counsel has placed reliance, in the circumstances where the goods were already put on for sale by way of e-auction. The Hon ble Supreme Court has held as under in para 18 to 21: 18. Mr Sunil Kumar, the learned Senior Counsel has, however, submitted that though the statute did indeed fix the maximum period of warehousing to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
