Decided on November 20,2018

Prag Bosimi Synthetics Limited Appellant
Commissioner Of Customs, Guwahati Respondents


A. S. Bopanna, J. - (1.) The petitioner Company is before this Court assailing the Demand Notices dated 3.7.2012 and 4.4.2012 issued by the Superintendent (TRC), Office of the Assistant Commissioner of Customs, Guwahati Customs Division. The petitioner is also assailing the detention and auction procedure adopted by the Deputy Commissioner of Customs, Guwahati Customs Division through the communication dated 7.4.2008.
(2.) The brief facts are that the petitioner, a Joint Sector Undertaking with Assam Industrial Development Corporation Limited, is engaged in the manufacture of Polyster Filament Yarn, an industrial raw material for textile industries. In the process of its business, the petitioner had imported certain second hand machineries, Titanium Dioxide, Spin Finish Oil & AntisepticBB for utilization in its factory. The details of the consignment of second hand machineries is contained in the communication dated 18.5.2006 addressed by the petitioner to the Commissioner of Customs. The fact that custom duty is payable in respect of the said imported items is not in dispute. Since the assessable value of the material could not be paid by the petitioner, the imported materials were kept in the warehouse of the petitioner. Since the duty as well as interest payable amounting to Rs. 1,45,11,453.00 as indicated in the letter dated 7.4.2008 (Annexure-16) had not been paid, action was initiated by the respondent authority for recovery of the amount. It is in that circumstance, the petitioner is before this Court assailing the action of the respondents in realizing an amount of Rs. 57,12,232.00 by eauction of warehouse goods. The petitioner is also aggrieved by the notice dated 4.4.2012 demanding payment of the remaining amount of Rs. 87,99,221/-, failing which attachment of property under Section 142 of the Customs Act, 1962 was threatened.
(3.) The respondent had filed an affidavit-in-opposition wherein it is pointed out that the detention of goods was made through three notices, all dated 9.5.2008 (Annexures-III, IV and V to the affidavit-in-opposition). The petitioner herein claiming to be aggrieved by the said notices, had preferred three appeals. As the delay in filing the appeals had not been appropriately explained and since the delay was not condoned, the appeals filed by the petitioner were dismissed through the order dated 22.4.2009 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) as being barred by time. The said order has attained finality. It is in such circumstances, the notice of auction dated 1.11.2010 (Annexure-VII to the affidavit-in-opposition) was issued and the imported machineries which were detained, were sold out and a portion of the amount payable by the petitioner was realized.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.