TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2008 (2) TMI 25
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....riod which was allowed by the Commissioner, Customs on 5^th September 1997 upto 31^st March 1998. A security deposit of about Rs.10, 00,000/- and an advance customs duty of about Rs.98, 00,000/- were deposited with the department on 31^st March 1998 but the goods were still not cleared. From 1998 till 31^st January 2001, several notices were sent to the respondent to clear the goods or to pay the duty and during this period the warehousing period was extended six times with the last extension expiring on 31^st January 2001. As the respondent sought no further extension thereafter, the aforesaid period came to an end. Several notices were thereafter issued to the respondent under Section 72(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter called the "Act") raising a demand of duty etc. As no reply was forthcoming, a notice under section 72(2) of the Act was issued to the respondent on 3^rd December 2001 for sale of the goods by auction so as to recover of the outstanding dues. Interestingly, however, the respondent vide his letter dated 31^st December 2004 also surrendered the goods with the result that it ceased to have any claim over them. T....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uly 2006 the respondent filed yet another Writ Petition No. 4655 of 2006 before the Bombay High Court for a direction to re-export the goods. This Writ Petition came up for hearing before the High Court on 26^th July 2006 and the High Court directed the department to file a statement as to the expenses that had been incurred by it till date. The department thereupon filed a detailed affidavit in the Bombay High Court pointing out the repeated defaults on the part of the respondent and that the protracted proceedings in one forum or the other had resulted in a revenue loss of Rs.8.55 crores. This Writ Petition was disposed of by the order dated 9^th August 2006 by accepting the undertaking of the respondent to re-export the goods by 14^th September 2006 without calling upon the respondent to pay any duty. This order has been impugned in the present Special Leave Petition. The respondent thereafter moved an application in CWP No. 4655 of 2006 before the Bombay High Court seeking a clarification that the order passed on 9^th August 2006 was with consent of both parties. The Division Bench in its order dated 14^th February 2007 observed that th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... circulars were of binding force, as held by this Court in Commissioner of Customs,Calcutta & Ors. V. Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd. & Anr. (2004) 3 SCC 488, the primary argument raised by the learned appellant's counsel with regard to the maximum period of warehousing, had no substance. It has also pointed out that the surrender document dated 31^st December 2004 had been withdrawn by the respondent vide letter dated 21^st September 2005 on the plea that it wanted to clear the goods and that an application for this purpose had also been made under section 69 of the Act. In answer to Mr. Agrawal's plea it has been submitted that it was not open to the Union of India to contend that a circular issued by one of its officers was contrary to the Statute in the light of the judgment in the case of Commissioner of Customs, Calcutta (supra). 6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record very carefully. The matter would turn on an examination of the various provisions of the Act. Section 46 of the Act deals with entry of goods on importation and warehousing of the goods in certain circumstances. Section 47 deals with cl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nbsp; xxx (d) xxx xxx xxx xxx the proper officer may demand, and the owner of such goods shall forthwith pay, the full amount of duty chargeable on account of such goods together with all penalties, rent, interest and other charges payable in respect of such goods. (2) If any owner fails to pay any amount demanded under sub-section(1), the proper officer may, without prejudice to any other remedy, cause to be detained and sold, after notice to the owner (any transfer of the goods notwithstanding) such sufficient portion of his goods, if any in the warehouse, as the said officer may select." 7. Concededly the present case would fall within the scope of Section 61(1)(b). The facts show that the goods imported by the respondent had been warehoused on 30^th of May 1996 initially for a period of one year i.e. the maximum permissible period but which had nevertheless be....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d under section 61 of the Act could, therefore, have been exceeded. Mr. Gaurav Agrawal has raised a larger issue - whether the circulars aforesaid could authorize a deviation from the Statute itself but in the light of the peculiar facts of the case we are not called upon to answer this question. We note from the perusal of the circular dated 14^th January 2003 that the request for re-export of the goods could be allowed even if the maximum period of warehousing had expired and demand notices had been issued and even if it had been decided to put the goods to auction. This circular obviously would not apply to a situation where the goods had already been put to auction. It is clear from the record that the first auction of the goods had been fixed on the 28^th September 2005. However, vide letter dated 22^nd September 2005 the respondent had requested the department to stop the auction and to allow it to clear the goods on payment of all charges and promised to file the various documents in one day but did not do so and on the contrary once again vide letter dated 28^th September 2005 moved another application for re-export of the goods. Th....