AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (8) TMI 207
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d by the Respondent, Suren International Ltd. 2. Admit. 3. The following question of law is framed for consideration: Whether the CESTAT was justified in holding that the Respondent was not liable to pay rent/warehousing charges in view of the fact that the ownership of the goods remained with it? 4. The facts leading to the filing of the present appeal are that the Respondent imported 40 containers of Aluminium/Copper scrap. When the goods were examined by the Department they found that there was a grossly erroneous declaration of weight and description of the goods. The seizure effected on 7th August, 2001 was of goods valued at Rs. 14,59,101. Additionally, from the premises of the Respondent, goods valued at Rs. 145.72 lakhs ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....re the CESTAT which, by the impugned order dated 4th December, 2015, set aside the order of both the Assistant Commissioner as well as Commissioner (Appeals). The operative portion of the impugned order reads thus: "I have gone through the adjudication order. In adjudication order, the appellant is asked to pay redemption fine, penalties and the duty applicable on the goods in question. The appellant has paid the same, therefore, the goods were required to be released to the appellant on payment of the amounts confirmed as per adjudication order. The adjudicating authority has not passed any order for payment of rent by the appellant for the period of seizure of goods. In these circumstances, the appellant is not liable to pay rent. As t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... It is also possible that in terms of the specific provisions of the CA, they may have certain discretionary powers. But even these have to be exercised reasonably and within the ambit of the CA. In no instance can they perform their adjudicatory functions outside the scope and ambit of the enumerated powers under the concerned statutes. 13. In the context of the present case, where refund of a sum paid as warehousing charges is sought by an importer, the authority to whom the application is made will first and foremost, have to examine under what provision of the law such a request is made and whether such a request can in fact be entertained. Significantly, in the present case while dismissing the Respondent's appeal, the Commissioner ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....clearance of warehoused goods for export' do not envisage refund of warehouse charges. Significantly, Section 73 of the CA, the cancellation of the warehousing bond is conditional upon payment of "all amounts due on account of such goods." The expression "all amounts" is obviously not restricted to the customs duty, penalty, fine etc. It would include the warehousing and/or demurrage charges. Section 141 of the CA states that goods in the customs area would be subject to the control of the officers of Customs in such manner as may be prescribed. None of these provisions mention anything about the owner seeking refund of warehousing charges. 16. Indeed there appears to be no specific provision in the CA or the rules thereunder which conte....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....enables the customs authorities to issue a detention certificate, cannot extend to directing the carrier or the owner of the container to waive the charges even where an order of confiscation or levy of penalty is ultimately held to be illegal by the courts. iv. The only option is for the Central Government to make a request to the owner of the container or the space where the goods were stored to waive demurrage charges and if it is so conceded then to that extent the importer would be able to get some relief." 18. In S.K. Metal & Co. (supra), the Court also took note of the decision of this Court in Trip Communication Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India (2014) 302 ELT 321 (Del), in which after analysing the Handling of Cargo under Customs A....