TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2004 (12) TMI 226
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ttings 1, 87,89,374/- And deposited the same in a private Bonded Warehouse on 18-5-1999: 2. (a) The initial Warehousing period was valid till 18-5-2000 in terms of section 61(1)(b) of the Customs Act, 1962. Appellants request for extension of the Warehousing period was rejected by the department on 18-6-2001. Thereafter, three demand notices dated 18-6-2001, 25-7-2001, and 27-7-2001 were issued to them under Section 72 of the Customs Act 1962 directing to forthwith remove the said goods on payment of duty and interest. (b) In the meantime, appellant had applied for and obtained two EPCG licences bearing Nos. 0330000724, dated 27-11-2000 & 0330001481, dated 1-11-2001, which "specifically'....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e shall be deemed to be the period permitted for fulfilment of the export obligation in full" (e) When the appellant claimed the benefit of the aforesaid since the goods had "remained uncleared even after expiry of the warehousing period" duty amounting to Rs. 6,02,57,006/- along with interest at the rate in force amounting to Rs. 2,44,53,523/- till 30-11-2001 and further interest at the applicable rate "at the time of clearance" as per provisions of section 72(1) (b) of the Act was required to be paid by the appellant and recovered from it. Para 7 of the notice also alleged that since the appellant had "failed to ex-bond the goods" covered under the three Bills of Entry mentioned above on paymen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s evident from the show cause notice itself. The same in para 6 states that the Warehoused goods covered under Bs/E discussed in para "remained uncleared even after the expiry of warehousing period." They were physically in the warehouse would further, appear from the proposal in" the same para to apply interest at the applicable rate at the "time of clearance". This shows that the goods had not been' cleared from the Customs' merely by reason of expiry of the Warehousing period. The goods remaining deposited in Ware House without payment of import duty leviable thereon cannot be said to be "Cleared from Customs". Therefore, since duty had not been paid by the appellant and the goods continued to be 'under Customs' control they had not been....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t the Licensing Authority had the requisite jurisdiction and power to relax the conditions of the policy or amend the licence retrospective to validate import of goods already received or arrived. Therefore the case of KLJ Plastics would not be applicable. The case of KLJ Plastics Ltd. was apparently a case where a conversion of Bill of Entry was being sought, which was not the situation in the case in hand. (c) The lower authorities have failed to appreciate the vital difference that existed between the EXIM Policy concerning the EPCG Scheme and the DEEC Scheme. While para 7.17 of the EXIM Policy relating to DEEC Scheme conferred a discretion upon the Customs for granting the benefit of an Advan....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s., dated 27-4-2000 was already in force and since a licences as required by that notification had been issued specifically for the goods already imported by the appellant by giving reference to their description and suppliers' Invoice Nos., there was no reason left for the Customs to overlook the provision of para 6.6 of the EXIM Policy and deny the benefit to the appellant by mis-reading and mis-interpreting the Supreme Court's judgment in Kesoram Rayon's case. As both the EXIM Policy (Chapter 6, para 6.6) as well as Customs Notification No. 49/2000-Cus., dated 27-4-2000 specifically provide for the eventuality of an EPCG licence being issued, after an import but prior to clearance of the goods by the Customs, as is apparent from para 6.6....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd period, had not only upheld duty-free clearance but also held that no interest could be charged thereon. (e) Board Circular No. 3/2003, dated 14-1-2003 completely changed the position with regard to the status of goods remaining in a Warehouse after the expiry of the Warehouse period. This Circular acknowledged that such goods continued to be Warehoused goods and even permitted Export of such goods without payment of duty under Section 69 of the Customs Act or an order had been issued by the Customs authorities demanding duty, interest and other charges on such goods upon expiry of the initial or extended period of warehousing. The Board had directed the Chief Commissioner to extend the period....