Interest on warehoused goods remains payable after delayed clearance, despite waiver arguments and rejected remand request.

Warehoused goods left uncleared beyond the normal and extended bonding period attracted interest under Section 61(2) of the Customs Act, 1962, because the importers knew that interest would arise if clearance was delayed yet continued seeking extension. A waiver request did not justify interference with the demand where the matter had already been referred to and denied by the Board, and the remand plea that the Chief Commissioner should have decided the waiver was rejected. The stated delegation under Notification No. 59/93-(N.T.) Cus. did not alter the result, and the demand for interest was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether interest was leviable on warehoused goods under Section 61(2) of the Customs Act, 1962, and whether the waiver request could justify interference with the demand.

Analysis: The goods remained in warehousing beyond the normal and extended bonding period. The importers were aware that interest would arise if clearance was not made within the prescribed time, yet continued to seek extension of the warehousing period. The request for remand on the footing that the waiver application should have been dealt with by the Chief Commissioner was not accepted, especially since the matter had already been referred to and denied by the Board. The delegation under Notification No. 59/93-(N.T.) Cus., dated 26-11-1993 did not assist the appellants in the circumstances.

Conclusion: Interest was validly leviable and no interference was warranted; the appeal failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where warehoused goods remain uncleared beyond the permissible period with knowledge that interest is attracted, and waiver has already been declined at the competent level, the demand for interest under Section 61(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 is sustainable.

---