9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (9) TMI 218X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ri S.K.Bagaria, ld. Advocate and Shri D.K. Bhowmik, ld. JDR. 3. It is the contention of the appellant that they entered into a contract with an overseas supplier and imported one hydrolic excavator with working attachments. A bill of entry for warehousing in respect of the said goods was filed on 25-3-99 along with a chartered engineer's certificate dt. 10-5-99, as required by the customs authorities. On 29-4-99, the customs authorities made endorsements at the back of the bill of entry for warehousing as regards further examination of the packets and also to the effect that the goods to be kept detained till further orders from group. Thereafter on 10-5-99/11-5-99 further endorsements were made at the back of the bill of entry to the eff ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Customs Authorities and not on account of any non-action by the appellant. He submits that Section 61(2) itself provided for payment of interest on the amount of duty payable at the time of clearance of the goods. Thus interest payable for delayed payments of warehoused goods is directly linked to the amount of duty finally assessed as payable at the time of clearance of the goods. If the customs authorities do not finally assess the duties payable on the goods and also prohibit the importer from taking clearance, the liability for payment of interest under Section 61(2) can never arise till conclusion of the said proceedings and passing of final order and finally assessing the amount of duty payable by the importer. He submits that on t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sions. He also submits that said section nowhere carves out an exception that where the goods remain in the warehouse on account of proceedings having been started by the customs, the interest shall not be payable. 6. I have considered the submissions made from both the sides and have gone through the impugned order. The sole issue in the present appeal relates to the interpretation of the provisions of Section 61(2). I find that an identical issue cropped up before the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Kanchanjanga Pvt. Ltd. referred supra. The importer in that case had also filed the bill of entry for ex-bond clearance of the goods well within time as in the present case when the bill of entry for ex-bond clearance for home con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ase of suppression of fact or misinterpretation or any unlawful action on the part of the petitioner. The petitioner could not clear the goods within the prescribed time because the customs officer would not pass any order within a reasonable period of time. When ultimately the order was passed it was found that the petitioner's declared value had been accepted in toto. Therefore, the levy of interest in a case like this is entirely unjustified and not warranted by the provisions of Section 61(2) of the Customs Act. 18. In view of the peculiar circumstances of this case and following the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Priyanka Overseas Pvt. Ltd. v. UOI [1991 (51) E.L.T 185 (S.C.)], it must be held that there wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
