TMI Blog2017 (8) TMI 207X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ns of the CA, they may have certain discretionary powers. But even these have to be exercised reasonably and within the ambit of the CA. In no instance can they perform their adjudicatory functions outside the scope and ambit of the enumerated powers under the concerned statutes. There appears to be no specific provision in the CA or the rules thereunder which contemplates refund of warehousing charges. The Court has also not been shown any regulation or circular which permits an application to made to an officer of the Customs exercising powers of adjudication powers, to entertain and grant the prayer for refund of warehousing charges. There is no provision in the CA or any other law that enabled the CESTAT to grant such a relief - appeal allowed - decided in favor of Revenue. - CUS. AA No. 29/2016 - - - Dated:- 2-8-2017 - S. Muralidhar And Prathiba M. Singh, JJ. For the Appellant : Mr. Amit Bansal and Mr. Akhil Kulshreshtha, Advocates. For the Respondent : Mr. R. Santhanam and Mr. A.P. Sinha, Advocates. ORDER Dr. S. Muralidhar, J. 1. This is an appeal by the Customs Department ( Department ) directed against an order dated 4th December, 2015 passed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re the CESTAT which, by the impugned order dated 4th December, 2015, set aside the order of both the Assistant Commissioner as well as Commissioner (Appeals). The operative portion of the impugned order reads thus: I have gone through the adjudication order. In adjudication order, the appellant is asked to pay redemption fine, penalties and the duty applicable on the goods in question. The appellant has paid the same, therefore, the goods were required to be released to the appellant on payment of the amounts confirmed as per adjudication order. The adjudicating authority has not passed any order for payment of rent by the appellant for the period of seizure of goods. In these circumstances, the appellant is not liable to pay rent. As the appellant has paid an amount on account of rent in favour of Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), NCH, New Delhi under protest, the said amount is refundable to the appellant as the appellant has no liability to pay rent. In these circumstances, the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Accordingly, the same is set aside. Appeal is allowed with consequential relief. 10. It must be mentioned herein that at the first heari ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ticular provision in terms of which an importer could seek refund of the warehousing charges after payment of the redemption fine and penalty. 15. Section 49 provides for warehousing of imported goods pending clearance. The Customs authorities can permit the importer, on his making an application, to deposit the goods entered for home consumption in a private or public warehouse for a specified period pending clearance. Sections 59 to 73 A in Chapter IX are general provisions under which the importer may warehouse imported goods. Section 61 (2) of the CA talks of exemption being granted from payment of interest on the customs duty in certain circumstances, where the detention is beyond a period of 90 days. Section 64 spells out the owner s right to deal with the warehoused goods. Section 68 of the CA concerns clearance of warehoused goods for home consumption and Section 69 concerns clearance of warehoused goods for export do not envisage refund of warehouse charges. Significantly, Section 73 of the CA, the cancellation of the warehousing bond is conditional upon payment of all amounts due on account of such goods. The expression all amounts is obviously not restricted t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... so conceded then to that extent the importer would be able to get some relief. 18. In S.K. Metal Co. (supra), the Court also took note of the decision of this Court in Trip Communication Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India (2014) 302 ELT 321 (Del), in which after analysing the Handling of Cargo under Customs Area Regulations, 2009 the Court held that it is only in cases where on conclusion of the adjudication proceedings there is no imposition of any fine, penalty, personal penalty and/or warning by the customs authorities , that the policy of waiver from payment of demurrage charges would apply and that to subject to other compliances. The above decisions may not directly apply to the facts of the present case where the question concerns refund of warehousing charges. Nevertheless they highlight the legal position that the right to seek waiver of demurrage charges is only when there is a policy in that regard and that too is conditional upon the adjudication proceedings concluding in favour of the importer without imposition of fine or penalty. Even then, the discretion in that regard is not with the adjudicating authority under the CA. 19. The CESTAT in the present case failed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
