2025-VIL-1069-GUJ-CU
  1. Home
  2. 2025-VIL-1069-GUJ-CU

CUSTOMS High Court Cases

Customs – Ex-bond clearance, Jurisdiction to demand differential duty, Warehoused goods – Respondents imported petroleum products at Vadinar Port, Gujarat. The respondent filed Into-Bond Bills of Entry with Customs House Vadinar, Jamnagar for warehousing the imported goods at their private licensed warehouse tanks. Subsequently, the respondent executed a bond under Section 67 of the Customs Act to transport the warehoused goods without payment of duty through pipeline to their refineries. The respective Customs Authorities finally assessed the duty at the refineries. The Commissioner of Customs having jurisdiction over Vadinar Port later passed an Order-in-Original confirming the differential duties along with interest and penalty - Whether the Commissioner of Customs at Jamnagar had the jurisdiction to reassess the Into-Bond Bills of Entry and demand differential duty in respect of clearances effected by the respondent from the private bonded warehouses situated at various locations – HELD - The larger bench of the Tribunal in case of Ferro Alloys has rightly held that the jurisdiction to raise demand of duty on exempted goods found to be not utilized as per the terms of exemption by importers can be done only by the officer having jurisdiction over the warehouse – In the present case, the Tribunal was justified in referring to the decision of the Larger Bench rendered in case of Ferro Alloys Corporation Ltd to hold that the Commissioner at Jamnagar having jurisdiction over Vadinar Port could not have issued the show-cause notice and carried out the reassessment proceedings and pass the Order-in-Original or levy of varying differential duties – Further, the assessment made at the time of filing the Into-Bond Bills of Entry was only provisional to secure the duty payable by the importer on the clearance of the goods later. The final assessment and reassessment, if any, could only be done by the proper officer having administrative jurisdiction over the respective refineries where the goods were removed under Section 67 of the Customs Act - The jurisdiction for raising demand for short payment of duty would lie with the Customs House through which the goods had been cleared and only the proper officer granting Ex-bond clearance can raise the demand for short levy or refund on reassessment of the duty – The impugned order is affirmed and the Department appeal is dismissed
Download File

Quick Search

/

Advance Search

GST Resources

/

Gst Rate Finder

Tax Vista

Your Weekly Tax Recap

By Kasi Viswanathan V

Weekly Summary

VIL Video

GSTR-9 & GSTR-9C of FY24-25
By CA Vivek Jalan

Create Account

Security-Code
New Code?

Log In

New User ? Forgot Password ?

Forgot Password

Security-Code
New Code?
Please Note: This facility is only for Subscribing Members.

Email this page

Feedback this page

Schedule a Demo

Schedule a demo to know the features and advantages of VILGST portal. Get to know the tips to find the desired results in faster way.

Caselaw Request Form (CRF)

Didn’t find what you are searching for? No worries, please give us the following details and VIL will email you the desired Caselaws at the earliest:

Security-Code
New Code?