9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (4) TMI 1043X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct, 1962 by giving one month notice in writing and opportunity to be heard. Therefore, notwithstanding the issue of letter of permission which was also the genesis of the private warehousing licence, provisions of Customs Act, 1962 do not envisage such deftailing of a scheme in Foreign Trade Policy with the self content and apprehensive provision for a warehousing in chapter IX of Customs Act, 1962 with the procedures formulated for implementation of such a scheme did prescribe the licencing of a private bonded warehouse for enabling operation as export oriented unit (EOU). Such a procedure cannot correct the existence and sanctity of a warehouse licenced under the provisions of chapter IX of Customs Act, 1962. Any termination of the said w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppellant Shri Ram Kumar, Assistant Commissioner (AR) for the respondent ORDER This appeal lies against order [order-in-original no. 01/2015-16 dated 06th April 2015] of Commissioner of Customs (NS-II), Nhava Sheva, which has fasten the appellant, M/s Gateway Terminals India Pvt Ltd (GTIPL}, with duty liability of ₹ 78,81,61,176, ₹ 3,59,418 and ₹ 1,28,025/- under section 28 of Customs Act, 1962 along with applicable interest under section 28AB of the Customs Act, 1962, while at the same time affirming the eligibility of five licences issued in 2005 under the export promotion capital goods (EPCG) scheme in the Foreign Trade Police (FTP) and further permitting the debit of ₹ 67,91,49,875 against the said licences as wel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and the goods were deemed to be have been cleared for home consumption on the date of debonding with all consequent liabilities arising as though the goods themselves had been cleared without payment of duty. 5. We have heard Learned Counsel for the appellant and Learned Authorised Representative at length. 6. This is a peculiar case in which the bonded warehouse licence came to cancelled, though vide the impugned order, with effect from the date of licence itself. Thus, the goods imported then and warehoused were also deemed to have been removed from the warehouse on that date even while cancellation of the warehousing licence was effected only on the date of the impugned order. On a perusal of the scheme of Customs Act, 1962, we find that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... statute to be subservient them too. 7. It would, therefore, appear that the impugned order, fastening the consequences of payment of duty on goods that continued to be warehoused till 6th of April 2015 is not only contrary to the provisions of Customs Act, 1962 but also in breach of the principles of natural justice which prescribes consequences of termination of warehousing licence only after completion of the due process. For this reason, we set aside the impugned order and, as the show cause notice had not been decided after due consideration of the legal provisions, the matter is remanded to the original authority for a fresh decision on the termination of warehousing licence and consequences thereof, if any, strictly in accordance with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
