Mandatory re-warehousing certificates control duty liability where cleared goods are not properly evidenced as received or re-warehoused.

Where goods are cleared to an up-country warehouse, the duty position depends on compliance with the prescribed re-warehousing procedure. The assessee failed to produce countersigned or duly endorsed re-warehousing certificates within the required time and did not provide reliable proof that the goods had been received back or re-warehoused. In the absence of the mandatory documentary evidence required by the rules, the authorities were justified in treating the goods as not duly accounted for and in sustaining the duty demand. The duty demand was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the duty demand confirmed on goods cleared to an up-country warehouse was sustainable where the assessee failed to produce the prescribed re-warehousing certificates and proof of receipt in the manner required by the applicable rules.

Analysis: The evidence on record showed that the matter was confined to cases where re-warehousing certificates with proper endorsement were required to be produced. The assessee did not furnish countersigned or duly endorsed certificates within the prescribed time and did not place reliable documentary material to show that the goods had been duly received back or re-warehoused. In the absence of compliance with the mandatory procedure, the authorities were justified in treating the goods as not duly accounted for and in sustaining the duty demand.

Conclusion: The demand of duty was upheld against the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the statute or rules require production of duly endorsed re-warehousing certificates as proof of receipt of cleared goods, failure to comply with that mandatory requirement justifies confirmation of duty demand.

---