TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1987 (1) TMI 103
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on in this petition have to be considered in the background of the following :- In the period July to September 1982, petitioner imported stainless steel sheets and circles as per the particulars given in para 3 of the petition. Petitioner filed two bills of entry for warehousing of the consignment as required by Section 59 of the Act. After the bills of entry had undergone the requisite scrutiny, the imported goods were stored at the public warehouse under bonds at Wadala, Bombay. The permitted warehousing was for a period of one year ending with 4.10.1983. On 27.12.1983, petitioner moved two applications covering the two consignments for an extension of the bond period by three months. The ground advanced was that petitioner, in view o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the period of warehousing and that the bonders, in terms of the demand notice, had lost all privileges available under Chapter 9 of the Act. Accompanying Exhibit "L" was the detention notice under Section 72 of the Act and marked Exhibit "M". Petitioner made a representation protesting against the action taken and this representation was addressed to the Central Board of Excise & Customs. As the powers of the Board had been delegated to respondent No. 3, the said representation was transferred unto him for consideration and disposal. Respondent No. 3 on 16.10.1985 rejected the representation vide the original of Exhibit "P". 3. It is petitioner's contention that the respondents were in error in refusing to extend the duration of the bo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....I will first address myself to the contention that petitioner has no locus standi to complain inasmuch as the affected party was Lalit Ltd. It is surprising that a plea of this nature has been raised by the respondents. Counsel representing them points to Exhibits "F" being addressed only to Lalit Ltd. Exhibit "F" is the "no objection" to the transfer of the goods figuring in this case from the petitioner to Lalit Ltd. But the application for effecting the transfer was made by the petitioner as also Lalit Ltd. This is .clear from the copies of the applications at Exhibits "E-1" and "E-2". While the subject was being thrashed out between the parties, never was an objection raised about the eligibility of the petitioner to make a grievance. I....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing six months and by the Board for such further period as it may deem fit." There is nothing in Section 61 to indicate that the application for extension must be made before the expiry of the period of warehousing initially permitted. Counsel refers to the scheme of Chapter IX in support of the contention that the application for extension must come before the expiry of the permitted bonding period. It is true that after the expiry of the warehousing period, the authorities are at liberty to take coercive steps to recover the withheld customs duty and other charges. But when the second proviso empowers the Collector and the Board to give extension for a further period of warehousing, a different intention seems to be indicated. Read rea....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hat, coupled with the admitted position, that steps had not been taken to recover customs duty or the warehousing charges, indicates that the power to grant an extension had not come to an end. That apart, the initial response of the authorities to the extension applications was different. They did not reject the applications outright. What they required to be done was that the bond period be got extended. This was so endorsed on the applications, copies whereof, are at Exhibits "G-1" and "G-2". 7. There is then the contention that the applied for bond-to-bond transfer was not permissible because dutiable articles were sought to be passed on to an importer to import through a duty-free port. Reliance is placed upon the terms of a notific....