1989 (7) TMI 105 - HC - Customs

Court rules in favor of petitioners, not liable for increased Customs duty.

The court ruled in favor of the petitioners, stating that they were not liable for the increased Customs duty demanded by the respondents due to delayed ... Customs - Warehousing - Evidence Issues:Impugning demand of increased Customs duty due to delayed clearance from bonded warehouse.Analysis:The petitioners imported goods in 1981 and cleared them to the bonded warehouse. They paid the Customs duty and demurrage on 28th February 1983 but were denied clearance by the warehouse Superintendent after 4 p.m. due to instructions from the Assistant Collector of Customs. The respondents later demanded increased Customs duty effective from 1st March 1983. The petitioners argued that they were entitled to remove the goods on the payment date and should not be liable for the increased duty.The absence of an affidavit in reply left the petitioners' claims uncontroverted. The court noted the reliance on a circular dated 18th February 1983 by the respondents but criticized the lack of communication regarding their case or the circular's specifics. The circular's relevance was questioned, especially concerning the normal closing hours and its binding nature on citizens. The court highlighted that the circular did not justify the refusal of clearance on the payment date, rendering the demand for increased duty invalid.The judgment favored the petitioners, deeming their petition successful. The respondents were directed to pay the petitioners' costs. The court ruled that the petitioners were not liable for the increased Customs duty as they should have been allowed to clear the goods on the payment date, rejecting the respondents' claim based on the circular's instructions.