TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal rules in favor of appellant on duty interest, clarifies warehousing charges distribution</h1> <h3>Commissioner of Customs, (Exports Promotion), Mumbai Versus M/s Diwakar Engineering Ltd</h3> Commissioner of Customs, (Exports Promotion), Mumbai Versus M/s Diwakar Engineering Ltd - 2017 (358) E.L.T. 1176 (Tri. - Mumbai) Issues:1. Disallowance of interest on duty leviable on warehoused goods.2. Limiting warehousing charges to the period for which goods are warehoused.3. Permission to seek rectification of computed duty liability on failure to meet export obligation under DEEC scheme.Analysis:Issue 1: Disallowance of interest on duty leviable on warehoused goodsThe appellant was fastened with duty liability for failure to fulfill export obligation against imports under the DEEC scheme. The detention notice was issued for recovery of the amount. The first appellate authority held that the interest charged under section 61 of Customs Act, 1962 was not authorized. However, the Tribunal held that interest liability should be charged on duty recoverable till the date of receipt of sale proceeds, citing relevant legal precedents. The Tribunal disagreed with the first appellate authority's decision and directed the interest to be charged accordingly.Issue 2: Limiting warehousing charges to the period for which goods are warehousedThe first appellate authority limited the warehousing charges to the period permitted for warehousing. However, the Tribunal emphasized that the adjudicating or appellate authority does not have jurisdiction to decide on the quantum of warehousing charges to be withheld. The charges are to be deducted from the sale proceeds as prescribed in the Customs Act, and the actual charges due to the warehouse-keeper should be met from the sale proceeds. The Tribunal directed the competent authority to limit the recovery to the amount claimed by the warehouse-keeper as charges.Issue 3: Permission to seek rectification of computed duty liability under DEEC schemeThe appellant's plea regarding the duty liability computed for failure to fulfill export obligation was responded to by the first appellate authority with a direction to seek rectification under section 154 of Customs Act, 1962. However, the Tribunal noted that the appeal before the first appellate authority related to the distribution of sale proceeds, not the quantification of duty liability. The Tribunal held that the duty liability issue should have been dealt with in a separate appeal proceeding, and the direction given by the first appellate authority was beyond its jurisdiction.In conclusion, the Tribunal directed the original authority to recompute the interest and warehousing charges within three months from the date of the order, disposing of the appeal accordingly.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
