TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (5) TMI 504
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ulation 6(1) (l) of Handling of Cargo in Customs Area Regulations, 2009 for waiver of ground rent or demurrage for the period the goods remained detained, seized and confiscated. COC was granted by the proper officer on 21.03.2018 for delivery of the impugned goods to M/s. Golden Enterprises. Subsequent to grant of COC by the department the respondent demanded ground rent from the importer for the period the goods were lying in CFS inspite of issuance of detention of/waiver certificate under Regulation 6 (1( (l) of Handling of Cargo in Customs Area Regulations, 2009 for waiver of ground rent or demurrage. Department vide letters dated 14.05.2018 and 16.5.2018 asked the appellant not to third party liability with specific directions to follow the provisions of Section 48 of Customs Act, 1962. Aggrieved against the refusal of the department to aggressively pursue the matter of waiver of detention/demurrage and the refusal of the custodian to accept the detention certificate, M/s. Golden Enterprises on 19.5.2018 filed Civil Writ Petition No.13194/2018 before Hon'ble High Court. During the pendency of the said petition, the respondent disposed of goods on 13.11.2019. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bunal in para4.7 of Hon'ble Tribunal's order dated 04.03.2020." Against the said order, the appellant approached the Commissioner (Appeals), who set aside the adjudication order for demanding interest from the respondent. 3. The sole contention of the Revenue is that the demand of interest against the respondent as per direction of Hon'ble High Court vide order dated 10.1.2020. It is the contention of the Revenue that the importer has deposited duty way back in 2013 but could not enjoy, therefore, the respondent liable to pay duty and interest from 2013. 4. It is his submission that the appeal in which duty payable by the assessee has been disposed by this Tribunal vide order dated 4.3.2020. The respondent is liable to pay interest and impugned order is to be set aside. 5. The respondent has also filed cross objection and written submissions. 6. It is his submission that the issue before this Tribunal is to determine whether it is legal demanding and recovering of interest from the respondent before determining liability of customs duty. It is his submission that the goods in question were detained on 3.3.2013 and later se....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aim of warehouse charges due to the importer's failure to take provisional release, took an about-turn in the contempt proceedings. They asserted that the said sale of goods by the respondent was in violation of section 45 and 48 of CA read with Regulation 6(1) (l) of Handling of Cargo in Customs Area Regulations, 2009 till that time as the department already initiated penal proceedings against the respondent by issuing a show cause notice on 27.6.2019. 8. It is the contention that the said sections applied only to the imported goods as defined in section 25 ibid and the importer's good had ceased to be imported goods after their clearance under section 47 ibid by the Customs on 21.3.2018, the invocation of said section 45 and 48 was incorrect at best and misleading at worst. As a matter of fact, the notice intended, instead of defending the Department's own consistent an lawful stand to scapegoat the respondent and escape contempt proceedings. Ironically, the importer's own culpability towards high demurrage bill, which was the central issue in this litigation, has been totally ignored. Instead, he is being rewarded for his ow....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g the dispute with recovery off duty from petitioner (respondent herein). There is no order of the Hon'ble High Court that the duty is payable by the respondent. Further, there was no order of determination of duty payable by the respondent as on date of passing OIO on 6.8.2020. 13. In view of this, it is his submission that the appeal is to be dismissed. 14. Heard the parties and considered the submissions. 15. On hearing both sides, I am of the view that whether the demand of interest confirmed by way of adjudication order is to be maintained or not? 16. The facts of the case are in dispute are that the duty has been received by the appellant from the importer way back in 2013 by the importer and with the Revenue. It is also the fact on record that on 31.3.2018 out of charge was given to the department to the respondent for the delivery of the goods to the importer. However, it is also fact on record that the goods have already been cleared for home consumption by way of auction by the respondent. In that circumstance, the dispute arose whether the Hon'ble High Court has directed to the appellant vide ord....