Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + SC Customs - 2011 (2) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2011 (2) TMI 227 - SC - CustomsDemand - Consignments under Bond - EPCG license - Concessional duty at the rate of 10% - the importer executed a bond and furnished a bank guarantee for 100% of the duty saved as required under Notification No. 29/97 dated 1st April, 1997 - the provisions of Section 68 and consequently of Section 15(1)(b) have no application since the goods were not cleared from the warehouse within the bond period - the goods shall be deemed to have been improperly removed from the warehouse under Section 72 and the Proper Officer was justified in calling upon the company to pay the customs duty on them as may be payable at the rate applicable at the rate on the date on which the bond period expired it is manifest that warehousing is permissible for a limited period, as contemplated under sub-sections (1)(a) and (1)(b) of Section 61; and such period is extendable on showing sufficient cause for the same - It is plain that Section 15(1)(b) would be applicable only when the goods are cleared from the warehouse under Section 68 of the Act, i.e., within the initially permitted period or during the permitted extended period - It is also a cardinal principle of construction that the provisions of a notification have to be harmoniously construed as to prevent any conflict with the provisions of the Statute It was asserted that reliance on the decision of this Court in Kesoram Rayon v. Collector of Customs, (1996 -TMI - 44311 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) by the High Court was clearly misplaced because unlike in the present case, the goods in that case had been removed on the basis of the order under Section 72 of the Act - Accordingly the appeals are dismissed
|