9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (12) TMI 163X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arehoused goods was not cleared within the warehousing period of one year. The importer did not seek extension of the warehousing period. Thereupon the Asst. Commissioner of Customs (Bonds) initiated proceedings to recover the duty due on the goods that remained uncleared in the warehouse in terms of provisions of Section 72 of the Customs Act (the Act). The Assistant Commissioner (Bonds) vide his letter dt. 31-1-07 rejected the request of SRF to allow them to clear 3250 kgs. of NFY on payment of duty on its salvage value. He ordered payment of an amount of Rs.1,56,628/- under Section 72(1) of the Act in respect of the uncleared goods. These goods had been damaged and had deteriorated in quality. The impugned order was passed considering th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to 13-11-05. At the time of warehousing of the consignment, the deposit challan issued by the customs bonded warehouse had carried an endorsement that 130 cartons had been received in wet condition. Therefore, the department had 'constructive knowledge' of the fact that the impugned goods had been damaged at the time of their warehousing. The impugned order had rejected the legitimate relief sought by the SRF under Section 22 of the Act. 4. Heard both sides. 5. I find that there is no dispute that the subject goods had suffered damage before they had been warehoused in Nov. '05. The appellants had intimated the proper officer about the damage suffered by the impugned goods after the expiry of the warehousing period provided in Section 61 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Bill of Entry was filed for clearance of the impugned goods. No intimation was furnished to the proper officer as regards the damage suffered by the impugned goods before its warehousing even during the warehousing period. I find that the impugned order denied relief in terms of Section 22 as the importer had not taken steps as provided in the statute for the impugned goods to qualify for such relief. During the hearing, ld. consultant relied on a decision of the Tribunal in Atul Spices Pvt. Ltd. v. CC, Pune, 2006 (202) E.L.T. 540 (Tri.-Mumbai). I find that the said decision dealt with a case where imported goods had been ordered to be assessed at an enhanced value which was set aside by the Commissioner (Appeals). The Tribunal ordered tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
