TMI Blog2003 (1) TMI 449X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... leased on payment of a redemption of Rs. 2,00,000/-; and (b) release of 1,16,800 metres of 100% polyester fabrics to the said Shri Jayant Patel on payment of the appropriate duties of customs leviable thereon. In the said order it was further ordered that appropriate storage charges shall be collected by the Department in respect of the said goods. 2. (a) In an appeal before the Hon ble CEGAT, Madras, Shri Jayant Patel contested, inter alia, the proposed collection of the storage charges. The Tribunal vide their order No. 1516/96, dated 2-9-1996 [1997 (89) E.L.T. 164 (Tri.)], in so far as the matter relating to storage charges is concerned, held that there was no point in the show cause notice that the appellant has to pay the st ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ollect Charges payable in respect of such goods. The expressions liable to any duty and charges payable cannot be construed as a charging provision. Moreover, the expression Charges has been left vague without specifying its ambit and scope. Since levy of Charges has not been authorized under the Customs Act, obviously its collection is unwarranted in the absence of any Regulation issued under Section 157 or 158 of the Customs Act, 1962. (underlining supplied) 3. Revenue has filed this appeal on the ground that - (1) The Hon ble CEGAT, Madras has categorically directed vide para 13 of its order No. 1516/96, dated 2-9-1996 [1997 (89) E.L.T. 164 (Tri.)] that the Administrative Collector will look into this aspe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... required it to fit into definition of Customs Act, 1962, as is being observed by learned Commissioner. The Public Notice appears to be based on Board s instructions to all field formations for the sake of uniformity, and the said Public Notice is applicable, though no formal orders are available, and by convention, it is being applied uniformly. Hence, the learned Commissioner appears to have erred by not applying the said Public Notice, as its binding nature is not only authoritative but also based on precedent. (3) Even the provisions of Passengers Baggage (Levy of Fees) Regulations, 1966 under Sections 157 and 158 of the Customs Act, 1962 could have been made applicable by the learned Commissioner taking it as a precedent, as the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ble to duty derives its mandate from Section 12 of the Customs Act, 1962, whereas the word Payable implies a legislative intendment from Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962. Further, it is also not correct to hold that the word other charges have been left vague. In fact, its amplitude appears to be widest and scope unlimited, as variety of sundry expenses such as handling, transportation, freight, storage, upkeep, etc., cannot be described in detail in the Act for sake of brevity. Hence, the learned Commissioner appear to have erred by misinterpreting the provisions of Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962. The following case laws are relevant to make a distinction between the words liable and payable which are furnished hereunder ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... les of Natural Justice. No grave harm has emerged, in the Commissioner having resorted to a Quasi Judicial Act. We find no reason in the ground No. (1) to upset the order impugned. (b) Seized goods in this case were not kept in any warehouse appointed or licensed as a public or private warehouse under Sections 57 and 58 of the Customs Act by the Department. Therefore charges for storage and upkeep, etc., as applicable to goods in a warehouse were not leviable on persons who finally were allowed clearance of these goods, as held by the High Court of Orissa in the case of Biramoni Sahu v. Collector of Customs and Excise and Others reported in 1979 (4) E.L.T. (J 541) relied upon by the learned Counsel for the Respondents. Therefore, we ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... roprietor of the space from levying any demurrage charges. Having scrutinized the provisions of the Customs Act, we are unable to find out any provision which can be remotely construed to have conferred power on the customs authorities to prevent the proprietor of the space from levying the demurrage charges and thereby absolving the importer of the goods from payment of the same. Therefore, we find nothing amiss in the proprietor of the space, to levy demurrage charges for the use of the space. However, the Commissioner s Administrative Building where the goods were stored and charges for such storage could be levied, only if these charges had been notified in advance to the public or the levy of such charge should emanate from the Re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
