2003 (1) TMI 449 - AT - Customs

Customs Act: Confiscation of Fabrics & Storage Charges Dispute Upheld. Quasi-judicial nature emphasized.

The case involved the confiscation of polyester fabrics under the Customs Act, 1962, and a dispute over the collection of storage charges. The ... Accounting - Storage charges Issues:1. Confiscation of polyester fabrics under the Customs Act, 1962.2. Dispute over the collection of storage charges.3. Interpretation of Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962.4. Applicability of regulations and principles of equity in determining charges.5. Distinction between 'liable' and 'payable' under Section 125.6. Judicial precedents and relevant case laws.Confiscation of Polyester Fabrics:The Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, Hyderabad ordered the confiscation of polyester fabrics under the Customs Act, 1962, with an option for release upon payment of redemption and appropriate customs duties.Dispute Over Storage Charges:In an appeal before the CEGAT, Madras, the issue of storage charges arose. The Tribunal directed a review of the matter, leading to a writ petition in the High Court of Andhra Pradesh. The Commissioner, after considering Section 125 of the Customs Act, concluded that the collection of storage charges was unwarranted without specific authorization.Interpretation of Section 125:The Revenue appealed, arguing that the Tribunal's direction implied administrative handling of storage charges. However, the Tribunal found no infirmity in the Commissioner's adjudication, emphasizing the quasi-judicial nature of levy determinations under Section 125.Applicability of Regulations and Equity:The Revenue contended that regulations like the Passengers Baggage (Levy of Fees) Regulations could apply, but the Tribunal rejected this argument. The absence of specific rules did not absolve the importer from charges, but principles of equity could not justify unauthorized collections.Distinction Between 'Liable' and 'Payable':The Revenue's argument on the distinction between 'liable' and 'payable' under Section 125 was refuted. Case laws highlighted that 'liable' implies legal mandate, while 'payable' depends on the amount due, supporting the Commissioner's interpretation.Judicial Precedents and Conclusion:The Tribunal cited judicial precedents to support its findings, emphasizing the need for clear regulations or public notices for levying charges. Ultimately, the Revenue's appeal was dismissed, upholding the Commissioner's decision regarding the storage charges issue.