Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + HC Customs - 2015 (3) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (3) TMI 776 - HC - CustomsExtension of warehousing period - petitioner failed to discharge its duty by not paying the duty due on the warehoused goods as undertaken by it - detained goods were sold in e-auction - said sale proceedings came to be cancelled since the bidder had not fulfilled the terms. - Held that:- request for re-export of the goods could be allowed even if the maximum period of warehousing had expired and demand notices had been issued and even if it had been decided to put the goods to auction - circular would not apply to the present case, inasmuch as the warehoused goods were not only decided to put on auction, but also they were already put to e-auction held on 23.12.2011 and sold for ₹ 2,26,55,556/- to one Sri Shiva Impex, Chennai, which stood as highest bidder. Of-course, it is true that the said sale proceedings were subsequently cancelled, but, this cannot make any favour to the petitioner company to claim for extension of the period. It is no doubt true that warehousing is permissible even beyond the period fixed by the statute, subject to payment of interest on the amount of duty on the warehoused goods towards permissible period, however, it is to be noted that mere seeking for extension of the period does not serve the purpose and there should be a reasonable cause has to be shown for such extension. In this case, the petitioner company, right from the inception, has been seeking for extension of the warehousing period from time to time though citing reasons that the company was declared sick, etc., but there was no genuineness in its attempt in clearing the goods even after expiry of extended period. Petitioner company had no intention, whatsoever to clear the goods, but has been attempting throughout one and half a decade long period to stall the disposal of these uncleared time-expired bonded goods. - writ petition is liable to be dismissed for want of merits. - Following decision of Union of India v. Shakti LPG Ltd. [2008 (2) TMI 25 - SUPREME COURT] - Decided against assessee.
|