Clearance of warehoused goods for home consumption

Related judgements & precedents

These are some judgments that construed this section, and hold precedence value. They hold authority on how to read, interpret and use this section.

1. Sbec Sugar Limited vs Union of India

   Supreme Court of India 07 Feb 2011 Binding (SC) Reportable

   Court's Decision & Legal Precedent

   The benefit of duty exemption granted under EPCG Scheme notification is available only in respect of those goods which are cleared under Section 68 of the Customs Act (i.e., within the initially permitted warehouse period or during permitted extended period). Goods not removed from warehouse within the permitted period are deemed improperly removed under Section 72(1)(b) and the importer must pay customs duty at the rate applicable on the date of expiry of the permitted period. Section 15(1)(b), which prescribes duty computation at the rate applicable on date goods are actually removed from warehouse, applies only to clearance under Section 68 and not to goods deemed improperly removed under Section 72. Consequently, when goods are deemed improperly removed under Section 72, interest accrues from the date of expiry of the permitted period till actual clearance, irrespective of subsequent grant of duty exemption notification. Any other interpretation would render Section 72 otiose and create unintended amnesty benefits contrary to principles of harmonious statutory construction.

   On this section: Governs clearance of warehoused goods for home consumption requiring presentation of bill of entry, payment of duty and charges, and order by proper officer. Rate of duty computed under Section 15(1)(b) according to rate and valuation applicable on date goods actually removed from warehouse

   Read the full order on eCourts India

2. Mustan Taherbhai vs Commnr. of Central Excise & Customs

   Supreme Court of India 28 Feb 2011 Binding (SC) Reportable

   Court's Decision & Legal Precedent

   When a tribunal or court has been specifically directed by the Supreme Court to reconsider a matter by first establishing the foundational facts and then applying law in light of those facts, the tribunal must comply with such directions through fresh and genuine consideration, notwithstanding its earlier views on the matter. In cases involving customs duty on Indian-manufactured vessels where excise duty has been paid at original clearance, the question of applicability of subsequent customs notifications and the legal fiction doctrine requires evaluation against the actual facts that the vessel was manufactured and cleared in India with excise duty payment, not merely applying legal fictions created by notifications without factual foundation. The Tribunal's failure to comply with supreme court remand directions constitutes vitiation of decision.

   On this section: When importer intends to clear warehoused goods for home consumption, bill of entry required and import duty to be paid

   Read the full order on eCourts India

The holding above is the ratio decidendi as extracted from the judgment by eCourts India, reproduced unaltered — it is a rendering of the court's reasoning, not a substitute for its words. Read the order itself before relying on it.