TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (9) TMI 180
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to evade payment of duty. The petitioner was served with a show cause notice dated 20.06.2000 so as to show cause as to why the goods should not be classified as MS Rounds falling under Heading 72.14 of the 1st Schedule; the goods should not be assessed @ Rs.8.82 per Kg under Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962 (for short 'the Act') read with Rules 8 & 10 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988; the goods valued at Rs.2,43,2275/- should not be confiscated under Section 11 of the Act; and penal action should not be taken against them under Section 112 of the Act. After considering the reply to the show cause notices, an order was passed on 12.09.2012 by the Adjudicating Authority ordering the goods to be classified as MS Rounds valued at Rs.7.67 per Kg. as well as confiscation of 16.500 MT of goods, however, redemption of the same on payment of redemption fine of Rs.25,000/- and penalty of Rs.15,000/- was allowed. The Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) rejected the appeal on 30.11.2004, whereas the Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by the petitioner on 06.02.2008 setting aside the imposition of redemption fine and penalty. The Tribunal directed the respondents to release the goods afte....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....owed to open CFSs/ICDs/EPZs in addition to public sector agencies. The other intention of the Government has been to bring the Customs facilities to the doorstep of the exporting and importing community; therefore, many CFSs/ICDs/EPZs have been allowed to be opened in the interior, apart from port towns so as to decongest the ports. xxx xxx xx Guidelines on undertaking to be given by the custodians before being appointed as custodians of CFSs/ICDs/EPZs (1) The custodian should provide safe, secure and spacious premises for loading/unloading/storing of the cargo. The infrastructure for loading/unloading and storage operations should be designed to handle a minimum traffic of at least 10 TEU per day (two-way). The premises should be so designed that there should be provision for expansion of storage space, office accommodation, handing space, etc. for a period of 10 years; xx xx xx (15) Custodian shall not charge any rent / demurrage on the goods detained by Customs Department under the Customs Act or any other Act for the time being in force. However, the Customs Department shall pay the rent to the custodian after the ownership of the goods vests in the Government after confi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Slam International & Om etc. (1995) 3 SCC 151 and in Trustees of Port of Madras Vs. Nagavedu Lungi & Co. & others (1995) 3 SCC 730 as well as a Division Bench judgment of Andhra Pradesh High Court reported as Sujana Steels Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise (Appeals), Hyderabad 2002 (141) ELT 343 to contend that even if seizure is found to be not proper, the demurrage charges had to be paid by the importer. In International Airports Authority of India case (supra), the Customs Department has issued Detention Certificate and informed International Airports Authority of India and the Central Warehousing Corporation that no demurrage be charged for the period during which the goods were in their custody due to pendency of adjudication proceedings. But such entities refused to treat the entire period as free period but granted rebate and calculated demurrage in accordance with Rate Schedule framed by them. The amount of demurrage in each case came to be two or three times more than the value of the goods. It is said action, which was challenged in the writ petitions filed by the importers. The writ petitions were allowed. It is the said order, which was challenged by th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....entitled to recover charges from the importer for such period as the Customs authorities direct. 41. The purpose of the Customs Act on the one hand and the Major Port Trusts Act and the International Airports Authority Act on the other hand are different. The former deals with the collection of Customs duties on imported goods. The latter deals with the maintenance of seaports and airports, the facilities to be Provided thereat and the charges to be recovered therefor. An importer must land the imported goods at a sea-port or airport. He can clear them only after completion of Customs formalities. For this purpose, the sea-ports and airports are approved and provide storage facilities and Customs officers are accommodated therein to facilitate clearance. For the occupation by the goods of space in the sea-port or airport, the Board or the Authority which is its proprietor is entitled to charge the importer. That until Customs clearance the Board or the Authority may not permit the importer to remove his goods from its premises does not imply that it may not charge the importer for the space his goods have occupied until their clearance." Following the said judgment, the Supreme C....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bay Vs. Indian Goods Supplying Co. (1977) 3 SCR 343 and Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay Vs. Jai Hind Oil Mills C,. (1987) 1 SCR 932. 12. The principles which emerge from the decisions of the Supreme Court in International Airports Authority (supra) and its earlier decisions would suggest that no mandamus would lie to the Central Warehousing Corporation and its authorities to release the goods to the petitioner Company without payment of storage and demurrage charges. 13. In other words, the Central Warehousing Corporation authorities cannot be denied their statutory duties on account of demurrage and other charges. What has to be seen in the facts and circumstances of this particular case is whether the liability of the importer / petitioner Company to pay such dues is to be shifted to the Customs authorities as argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner, since the petitioner company was not responsible for detention of the goods in question as held by the CEGAT in its order dated 29.06.1999 and as reflected in the Detention Certificate issued by the third respondent dated 05.10.1999. The Supreme Court in Padam Kumar Agarwalla Vs. The Additional Collector of Custom....