9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (12) TMI 1860X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... velopment Commissioner, Madras Export Processing Zone (MEPZ) dated 04.12.2000 in the Private Bonded Site approved by the Customs Department. 3. The petitioner would submit that Export Oriented Units are liable to pay 100% Cost Recovery Charges to the Customs Department towards the charges of the officer in charge of bonded warehouse, who supervise imports and exports by the unit. The petitioner claims that though they had obtained approval from the Madras Export Processing Zone (MEPZ) and Customs Department, they did not function immediately due to non-availability of raw materials and machineries. 4. The Chief Account Officer of the Customs Department had issued a notice dated 13.12.2001 calling the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 2,41,231/- towards the Cost Recovery Charges. The petitioner's company has sent a reply dated 03.01.2002 and 06.05.2002 contending that due to non-operation of warehouse, the petitioner's company did not request the department to Post an Officer in charge of the said warehouse. 5. The petitioner has contended that they have effectively commenced operation only after 01.06.2002 and requested the respondent to withdraw the demand of Cost Recovery ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .2008 mechanically, thereby, rejecting the claim of waiver of Cost Recovery Charges for the period from 12.03.2001 to 31.12.2004. As against which, the petitioner has filed this writ petition. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that to switching over the Merchant Overtime Charges scheme from 01.01.2005 which was allowed on Merchant Overtime fee as per the request and they may be continued to do so. But, the Customs authorities on 08.03.2005 has allowed the case of Merchant Metallurgical Limited to switching Merchant Overtime fees, at request, the unit has not given an option to come out Cost Recovery Charges scheme up to 31.12.2004. The Merchant Overtime Charges was considered and allowed by the department only from 01.01.2005 it is mandatory on the part of the unit to remit the Cost Recovery Charges to the officer working as a bond officer as per the approval of ministry up to 31.12.2004. The bond officer already permitted against the Cost Recovery Charges will not revert back and still continue to function in the same post till the officer get promotion against the permanent vacancy in their wood cadre as per the ministry require. The amount of Cost Recovery Charge ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iod form 23.09.2002 to 15.09.2005. Therefore, the audit conducted at the Unit on 28.12.2006, and based on the observation of the Central Audit Authorities which was intimated to the petitioner on 08.03.2007 and received by them on 10.03.2007 to pay the Cost Recovery Charges to the tune of Rs. 5,28,259/- from January 2003 to December 2004 and Rs. 4500/- for the period from January 2005 to November 2006 for Merchant Overtime Charges. Despite the reminder, the petitioner did not make the payment of Cost Recovery Charges which force the department to enforce the Bank guarantee for realization of the Cost Recovery Charges by transactions a copy to the Unit as far as the waiver for the initial period from July 2000 to May 2001 which is still under consideration. 13. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents and perused the available materials on record. 14. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that since the petitioner's unit was not function effectively till 31.05.2002 and was commenced their operation only after 01.06.2002. The Cost Recovery Charges impugned by the Customs Department towards the officer in charge of the bonded ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ached the respondent after having provided company license renewed periodically under Section 58 of the Customs Act 1962, and in-bond manufacture license under Section 65 of the Customs Act 1962 have agreed by their letter dated 23.02.2001 to the Cost Recovery Charges for the officer allotted to the unit, as prescribed by the department. No doubt, the petitioner has sought waiver of the Cost Recovery Charges, on the ground that the petitioner's unit was not function effectively till 31.05.2002 and commenced their operation only after 01.06.2002. However, the said claim made by the petitioner cannot be a ground to seek waiver as such having sought for appointment of an officer under the in-bond Manufacturing License. The petitioner is bound to pay the Cost Recovery Charges, even if the petitioner's company claims that no activity was commenced till 31.05.2002. The allocation of the officer to pay the Cost Recovery Charges for the officer allocated to the unit does not have any relation to the operational capacity of the petitioner's company. The petitioner's company is liable to pay the Cost Recovery Charges from the date of granting license and from the date on whic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
