2026 (6) TMI 403

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Ltd. against Order-in-Appeal No. 1639/2022 & 1640/2022 dated 12.08.2022 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Bangalore. Since the issues are common in both the appeals, the same are disposed of by common order. 2. In both the appeals, the facts are that the appellants M/s. Advance Forming Technology Centre, Bangalore and M/s. Step Electronics Pvt. Ltd. had imported various electronic items vide various Bills of Entry No.144756 and 144658 dated 27.04.2006, Bills of Entry No.116936, 116934 dated 20.03.2006; No.116927 dated 07.07.2005; and No.145888 dated 28.04.2006 which were warehoused under respective warehouse bonds. The permissible warehousing for the bonds expired on 07.05.2007 and the appellants had failed to clear the wa....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... disallowing the same benefit to the present appellants cannot be sustained. He also submits that Section 23 read with Section 68 of the Customs Act, 1962 allows the importer to relinquish the title to the goods at any time before an order for clearance of goods for home consumption is made. In the present case, having relinquished the title of the goods, there is no offence committed by the appellants nor there can be any duty liable to be paid since the goods were not cleared for home consumption. Referring to the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of CC, Bangalore vs. Symphony Services Corporation India Pvt. Ltd.: 2012 (275) ELT 369 (Kar.) and the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan in the case of JK ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....is title to such goods regarding which an offence appears to have been committed under this Act or any other law for the time being in force.] 5.1 As seen from the above provisions, if the owner of warehoused goods relinquishes his title over the goods, then the question of payment of customs duty does not arise except in those cases where an offence case has been raised against the owner. In the present case, since the appellant has relinquished their title to the goods, the question of paying duty does not arise since we do not find any offence being committed by the appellants under the Customs Act, 1962. The Circular No.42/2003 dated 20th May 2003 also clarifies that the owner of any warehoused goods can at any time before order for ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ent. The confusion appears to have generated from the word "Interest' appearing in the text of the proviso. 3. In this regard it is clarified that the word 'interest' appearing in the said proviso, does not relate to interest accrued on the said duty till the date of such relinquishment but relates to interest on other dues such as warehouse charges, rent etc. 4. The trade and field formations may be informed suitably. 5. This issues with the approval of the Member (Customs) (CBEC). 5.2 The fact that the appellants had relinquished the title of the goods after the issue of the notice does not make him ineligible for the benefit of the provisions of Section 68 of the Customs Act, 1962. The Hon'ble Hi....