2008 (1) TMI 121 - AT - Customs

Customs Tribunal: Jurisdictional Limits on Duty Demands from Different Warehouses

The Tribunal allowed the appeals, emphasizing that the Commissioner of Customs, Jamnagar, lacked jurisdiction to demand differential duty for clearances ... Petroleum products imported at Vadinar port - removed under bond without payment of duty to warehouses which are outside the jurisdiction of Comm. of Customs, Jamnagar - goods have been admittedly received in the warehouses and the duty payments have taken place only at the time of clearance from warehouses, the question of demanding differential duty on such clearances by the officers at the port (or commissioner of customs, Jamnagar) of import does not arise – demand set aside Issues:Jurisdiction of demanding differential duty for clearances from warehouses under different customs commissioners.Analysis:The case involved three appeal numbers against the orders of the Commissioner dated 31-3-2005. The appellant imported petroleum products and filed Into-Bond bills of entry for warehousing at Vadinar port, Gujarat. The goods were transported without duty payment to refineries at different locations and cleared after payment of assessed customs duty. Subsequently, the Commissioner imposed differential duties, interest, and penalties based on alleged incorrect valuation. The appellant argued that the Commissioner of Customs, Jamnagar, lacked jurisdiction to demand the differential duty for clearances from warehouses situated under different customs commissioners.The appellant contended that the warehouses were outside the jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Customs, Jamnagar, who demanded the differential duty. The appellant cited precedents to support their argument that only authorities having jurisdiction over the warehouses could demand such duties. The appellant highlighted that duty payments were made only at the time of clearance from the warehouses at the refineries, not at the port of import. The appellant's position was that since the goods were received at the destination warehouses and duty was paid there, the Commissioner of Customs, Jamnagar, had no authority to demand differential duty.The Tribunal agreed with the appellant, emphasizing that the goods were received at the refineries' warehouses and duty payments were made during clearance from those locations. Therefore, the Commissioner of Customs, Jamnagar, did not have the jurisdiction to demand the differential duty for clearances made from warehouses under different customs commissioners. The Tribunal allowed the appeals solely on this jurisdictional point without delving into the case's merits or the issue of limitation raised by the appellant. The appeals were allowed with consequential relief.In conclusion, the Tribunal's judgment focused on the jurisdictional aspect of demanding the differential duty for clearances from warehouses under different customs commissioners. The decision clarified that the authority to demand such duties lies with the officers in charge of the receiving warehouses, where duty payments are made during clearance.