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 Upheld Commissioner's Decision on Duty & Interest Payment Under Customs Act, 1962</h1> <h3>JENSON & NICHOLSON (I) LTD. Versus COMMR. OF CUS. (PORT), KOLKATA</h3> JENSON & NICHOLSON (I) LTD. Versus COMMR. OF CUS. (PORT), KOLKATA - 2009 (244) E.L.T. 575 (Tri. - Kolkata) Issues:1. Extension of warehousing period for imported goods.2. Applicability of legal provisions under the Customs Act, 1962.3. Interpretation of communication from the Commissioner regarding payment of duty and interest.4. Comparison of cited legal precedents with the current case.Extension of Warehousing Period:The appellants imported goods and stored them in a Private Bonded Warehouse with warehousing periods expiring in 2001. They cleared some goods before expiry but requested an extension for the remaining pallets in 2004. The Commissioner's communication directed duty payment based on the expiry dates in 2001. The Tribunal found that the appellants did not seek extension before expiry, as required by law, and failed to approach the Chief Commissioner for extensions beyond six months. The communication did not extend the warehousing period, as the Commissioner lacked authority to do so beyond six months.Legal Provisions under Customs Act, 1962:The Tribunal highlighted Section 61 of the Customs Act, specifying warehousing periods and extension limits. It emphasized that the Commissioner could only extend by six months, and the Chief Commissioner had authority for further extensions. The appellants' failure to seek extensions within the legal framework led to the dismissal of their appeal.Interpretation of Communication from Commissioner:The communication from the Commissioner clarified duty and interest payment based on the expiry dates in 2001, in line with legal precedents like the Supreme Court's decision in the case of Kesoram Rayon. The Tribunal emphasized that the communication did not grant an extension of the warehousing period, as the Commissioner's power was limited to a six-month extension.Comparison of Legal Precedents:The appellants cited previous decisions to support their case, but the Tribunal found that the legal position established by the Supreme Court in the Kesoram Rayon case was decisive. The Tribunal rejected the applicability of earlier decisions due to the clarity provided by the Supreme Court's detailed order. The Tribunal concluded that the appellants' failure to follow legal procedures for extension rendered the Commissioner's communication lawful, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's communication regarding duty and interest payment, emphasizing the appellants' non-compliance with extension procedures under the Customs Act, 1962. The appeal was dismissed based on the legal framework and precedents cited in the judgment.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
