Just a moment...
Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) whether the date of lapse of the letter of permission and warehousing licence should be treated as the date of deemed removal for determining duty and valuation of imported capital goods and whether depreciation was admissible; (ii) whether interest was payable on the duty demanded on warehoused goods and duty foregone on goods cleared under the bonded arrangement; (iii) whether non-fulfilment of export obligation rendered the imported goods liable to confiscation, redemption fine and penalty.
Issue (i): whether the date of lapse of the letter of permission and warehousing licence should be treated as the date of deemed removal for determining duty and valuation of imported capital goods and whether depreciation was admissible.
Analysis: On expiry of the warehousing licence and the letter of permission, the goods were treated as deemed to have been removed from the warehouse. The relevant date for duty and customs valuation was therefore the date of such deemed removal. Since the capital goods had been put to use, depreciation was allowable on the depreciated value in terms of the applicable Board circular.
Conclusion: The date of deemed removal was taken as 31-03-2001 and depreciation on the imported capital goods was held admissible.
Issue (ii): whether interest was payable on the duty demanded on warehoused goods and duty foregone on goods cleared under the bonded arrangement.
Analysis: The definition of warehoused goods and the charging provision for interest showed that interest attached to delayed payment of duty on goods remaining under warehousing beyond the permitted period. The warehousing bond also obligated payment of duty and interest. On that basis, the liability to interest survived notwithstanding the plea that the goods ceased to be warehoused after deemed removal.
Conclusion: Interest was held payable on the duty demand.
Issue (iii): whether non-fulfilment of export obligation rendered the imported goods liable to confiscation, redemption fine and penalty.
Analysis: The concessional import notifications were conditional exemptions. Failure to fulfil the export obligation constituted breach of the import conditions, attracting confiscation under the provision dealing with exempted goods whose conditions were not observed. Once the goods were liable to confiscation, penalty on the importer followed and redemption fine could also be imposed under the customs provisions.
Conclusion: Confiscation, redemption fine and penalty were held legally maintainable, though their quantum was left for fresh computation.
Final Conclusion: The demand and consequential liabilities were not finally sustained in their original form. The matter was remanded for de novo recomputation of duty and reconsideration of the related consequences after giving the appellant an opportunity of hearing.
Ratio Decidendi: On expiry of the warehousing regime, duty on imported capital goods is to be determined with reference to the date of deemed removal, and where duty remains unpaid on warehoused goods or under a bonded import scheme, interest, confiscation consequences and penalty may validly follow from the breach of the statutory and bond conditions.