Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / RSS

2015 (1) TMI 672

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the order of the Assistant Collector of Customs. 2. The brief facts of the case refer that the appellant had placed an order for import of 500 MT of tin plates waste from USA. Consignment was dispatched in two lots and opening of first lot, goods were contained mild steel instead of tin plates waste as per invoice. As the goods imported different from the order, the goods were detained by the Assistant Collector of Customs from 23.9.1987 to 10.10.1987. The appellant requested for the release of the goods on provisional assessment and sought permission for bonding of the goods under section 49 of Customs Act, 1962. The Collector of Customs vide his order dated 27.12.187 confiscated the goods and gave an option to redeem the goods on paymen....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... guarantee for recovery of warehousing charges. 6. In the second round of litigation, on appeal before the Tribunal, the appellant raised the issue of correctness of demand against them under section 59 of Customs Act, 1962. They stated that in view of facts of the case as detailed in the Collector (Appeals)s order, there was case of provisional assessment and they have sought permission of the goods under section 49 of the Act. Department has alleged mis-declaration in their imported goods. However, on enquiry and re-adjudication in de novo consideration, their contention was accepted and it was held that there was no mis-declaration in their case. It was also contended that right section applicable in their case was section 49 as no cas....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....entral Board of Excise and Customs. But they contended that no warehousing charges are payable at all as their case was falling under section 49 of the Act. He also stated that no bond has been executed. 9. Ld.JCDR pointed out that there is case of warehousing of section 59. They have made part payment of Rs. 1,79,456/- and present proceedings are for remaining amount of Rs. 4,11,613/. He also submitted that the matter was taken by the Collector(Appeals) of Customs with CBE&C and the Board was pleased to grant waiver of warehousing charges under section 61(2) of Customs Act as conveyed through F. No.475/52/90-Cus-VII dated 19.11.1990. Ld.JCDR also pointed out that a request was made by them for conversion of warehousing bill of entry into ....