2003 (10) TMI 325 - AT - Customs

Penalty overturned for failure to extend warehousing period - Chief Commissioner's authority upheld

The Tribunal set aside the penalty imposed under Section 117 of the Customs Act on appellants for failure to extend the warehousing period for goods. The ... Penalty - Warehoused goods not claimed within normal period Issues:Extension of period for warehousing goods; Imposition of penalty under Section 117 of the Customs Act.Extension of Period for Warehousing Goods:The appeal was filed against the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) regarding the extension of time for warehousing goods. The appellants imported fag bearings and warehoused the goods on 8-12-2000. They requested an extension of the warehousing period on 26-11-2001, which was rejected by the Commissioner and conveyed to the appellants on 15-2-2002. Subsequently, the appellants made a representation to the Chief Commissioner for further extension, which was still pending. The Assistant Commissioner imposed a penalty of Rs. 10,000 under Section 117 of the Customs Act, which was reduced to Rs. 5,000 by the Commissioner (Appeals). The appellants argued that the issue of extension of warehousing time was pending before the Chief Commissioner, who had the authority to extend the period under Section 61 of the Customs Act. They contended that since the period was not extended and their request was pending, penal action under Section 117 was not warranted. The Tribunal agreed with the appellants, setting aside the impugned order and allowing the appeal.Imposition of Penalty under Section 117 of the Customs Act:The main contention of the appellants was that the rejection of their request for extension of the warehousing period did not justify penal action under Section 117 of the Customs Act. They argued that since their request for extension was pending before the Chief Commissioner, who had the power to extend the period, no penalty should have been imposed. The Tribunal found merit in this argument and held that the mere rejection of the extension request did not warrant penal action, especially when the matter was still pending before the competent authority. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the penalty imposed by the Assistant Commissioner and reduced by the Commissioner (Appeals), allowing the appeal in favor of the appellants.This judgment highlights the importance of procedural fairness and the authority vested in the Chief Commissioner regarding the extension of warehousing periods under the Customs Act. It underscores the principle that penal actions should be justified and not imposed arbitrarily, especially when relevant requests are pending before competent authorities. The Tribunal's decision provides clarity on the interplay between extension requests, penal provisions, and the discretion of statutory bodies in customs matters.