Bonded warehouse duty demand on imported machinery: 264 cases quashed, liability sustained for 27 cases with penalty upheld

Duty demand concerning imported second-hand steel mill machinery in bonded warehousing was analysed: goods in 264 cases were held not to have been warehoused in the notified public bonded warehouse because they were unloaded and stored outside the notified area with Superintendent permission, so customs duty and interest demands on those 264 cases were quashed. Missing 27 cases were found to have been unauthorisedly removed from the notified warehouse and factory premises, sustaining liability for customs duty and interest on those 27 cases. A penalty for unauthorised removal under the customs code was upheld against the importer.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the removal of 264 cases of imported goods from a notified public bonded warehouse.
2. Justification for the customs duty and interest levied on the 27 missing cases.
3. Applicability of Section 15(1)(b) vs. Section 15(1)(c) for determining the rate of duty.
4. Validity of the penalty imposed under Section 112 of the Customs Act.

Summary:

Issue 1: Legality of the removal of 264 cases of imported goods from a notified public bonded warehouse.

Appellant had imported second-hand steel mill machinery and parts under Project Import Facility. A warehouse within the industrial premises of the appellant was notified as a public bonded warehouse. On 07.08.1992, officials found 264 cases outside the warehouse but within the factory premises, and 27 cases were missing. The appellant argued that the goods were kept outside due to heavy rain and space issues, with permission from the Superintendent. The Court held that the permission granted by the Superintendent was not revoked, and thus, the 264 cases were not improperly removed. Therefore, Sections 71 and 72 were not applicable, and the decision to levy interest under Section 28AB was not justified.

Issue 2: Justification for the customs duty and interest levied on the 27 missing cases.

The Court found no explanation for the missing 27 cases. Therefore, the view that these cases were improperly removed from the warehouse was correct. The demand for duty of Rs.3,99,255.00 plus interest was sustained.

Issue 3: Applicability of Section 15(1)(b) vs. Section 15(1)(c) for determining the rate of duty.

The Court noted that Section 15(1)(b) would not apply as the warehousing period had not expired. Instead, Section 15(1)(c) was applicable. The Board's circular dated 12.07.1989, which clarified that Section 15(1)(c) would apply to goods removed after the expiry of the warehousing period, was not relevant here as the warehousing period continued.

Issue 4: Validity of the penalty imposed under Section 112 of the Customs Act.

The penalty of Rs.1,00,000.00 under Section 112 was upheld due to the unauthorized removal of the 27 cases from the warehouse and factory premises.

Conclusion:

The demand and interest on the 264 cases were set aside, directing parties to work out remedies under Section 15(1)(c) within eight weeks. The customs duty and interest on the 27 missing cases were sustained, and the penalty under Section 112 was not disturbed. The appeal was allowed in part, modifying the impugned order of CESTAT accordingly.

---