2017 (4) TMI 318

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tricably inseparable from the main issue: the approval granted for release of Rs. 1,01,91,402 vide letter dated 18th January 2013 of Deputy Commissioner of Customs, Disposal (General), Mumbai Customs House which was cancelled by subsequent communication of the same official vide letter dated 9th May 2013 and the custodianship having been accorded by the competent authority to M/s Jupiter Dyechem Pvt Ltd over the tank owned by M/s Aegis Logistics Ltd with the claim for rental dues by the latter. 2. Briefly, the facts are that M/s Traxpo Enterprises Pvt Ltd had imported methanol that was allowed to be warehoused in the tank owned by M/s Aegis Logistics Ltd and which were directed to be auctioned upon expiry of the warehousing period. Demand ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....stics Ltd was declared as ineligible to be considered as custodian in the absence of license as a private warehouse and, hence, not entitled to apportionment of sale proceeds under section 150 of Customs Act, 1962. An appeal having been filed before Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Mumbai -I, it was held, in impugned order MUM-CUSTM-SMP-181/2015-16 dated 9th September 2015, that there had been no formal review of the original order of sanction issued on 18th January 2013 and, with that having attained finality, there was no scope for refusal by a subsequent order. Aggrieved by this, Revenue is in appeal before us. 4. It is contended by the appellant that the original order of January 2013 was not a sanction but a mere communication of an....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....of the freight and other charges, if any, payable in respect of the goods sold, to the carrier, if notice of such charges has been given to the person having custody of the goods, (c) next to the payment of the duty, if any, on the goods sold, (d) next to the payment of the charges in respect of goods sold due to the person having custody of the goods, (e) next to the payment of any amount due from the owner of the goods to the Central government under the provisions of this Act or any other law relating to customs, and the balance, if any, shall be paid to the owner of the goods.' 6. It is clear from the factual matrix narrated supra that the goods were taken up for disposal on expiry of the warehousing period and there being no....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....it cannot but be held that M/s Aegis Logistics Ltd stands in the place of owner in so far as the goods concerned. Therefore, whether as custodian or as owner, the settlement of the claim in favour of M/s Aegis Logistics Ltd cannot be denied. There is also no prejudice to Revenue as the dues owed statutorily have been recovered from the sale proceeds. In the absence of any express provision under the Customs Act, 1962 debarring the disbursement of claims to those who have a lien on the goods, it is indeed strange that the Commissioner of Customs should go to such lengths to forestall the right of recovery by the owner of the warehouse premises. Considering these circumstances, there was no requirement for the first appellate authority to hav....