Various Instances of Permission by Proper Officer in Removal of Warehousing Goods

There are four instances where proper officer permits for removal of goods either for depositing in the warehouse or removal from there.

1.Removal of Goods from a Custom Station to Warehouse

Under Section 60, this permission is given by proper officer for removal of goods from Custom Station to cause deposit in Warehouse.

Section 60 [Permission for removal of goods for deposit in Warehouse] reads as:

(1) When the provisions of section 59 have been complied with in respect of any goods, the proper officer may make an order permitting removal of the goods from a Customs Station for the purpose of deposit in a warehouse.

Provided that such order may also be made electronically through the Customs automated system on the basis of risk evaluation through appropriate selection criteria.

(2) Where an order is made under subsection (1),  the goods shall be deposited in a warehouse in such manner as may be prescribed

[Prior to  Finance Act , 2016 the section 60 read as “60. Permission for deposit of goods in warehouse: When the provisions of section 59 have been complied with in respect of any goods, the proper office may make an order permitting the deposit of goods in a warehouse”   The word ‘removal’ brings about all the difference, in the scenario where Warehouse keeper became the Custodian and Customs did no longer remain a Custodian]

2. Removal of Warehoused Goods from One Warehouse to Another

Relevant Section of Customs Act for such permissions is Section 67. The section 67 reads as “The owner of the warehoused goods may, with the permission of the Proper officer, remove them from one warehouse to another [xxx] subject to such conditions as may be prescribed for the due arrival of the warehoused goods at the warehouse to which arrival is permitted. ”     (prior to Customs (Amenment Act) 55 of 1991 the xxx part was “without payment of duty”

3. Removal of Warehoused Goods for Home Consumption

Relevant Section of Customs Act for such permission by a proper officer is Section 68 of the Customs Act 1962.

The essence of the section is that Proper officer will not permit removal for home consumption until any due [Duty, interest *AND fine & Penalties (when any offence is committed in relation to warehoused goods] is yet to be paid. [*Earlier it included rent also]

If the owner of the warehoused goods wants to relinquish the title of goods before an order for H/C, he will be allowed to do so only after he pays the applicable penalties (and/or fine too), in case any offence committed.

4. Removal of Warehoused Goods for Export (Re-Export)

The section governing permission for such removal of warehoused goods is Section 69 of the Customs Act 1962. Again, the essence of the section is that permissions for exports of warehoused good can be given by the proper officer if any due [Export Duty, interest *AND fine & Penalties] applicable is settled with the Customs.

Exception to the provisions under section 69 is that when there are possibilities of such goods to be smuggled back into India, permission without payment of duty will not be allowed and/or suitable restrictions can also be specified by notifications.

Note: Essence of any sort of removal can not be forced upon the importer. If he imports something for H/C or Selling in India he can make up his mind to export the same if the situation so avails him advantage.

Related Articles on Warehousing You Might Love Checking:

3 thoughts on “Various Instances of Permission by Proper Officer in Removal of Warehousing Goods”

  1. In regard to imposition of penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, we observe that the Commissioner demanded duty under Section 28 read with Section 72 of the Customs Act on the goods clandestinely removed. He could not have imposed a penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act. Insofar as demand of interest under Section 11AB of the Central Excise Act rend with Section 28AB of the Customs Act is concerned, we observe that the Commissioner was not certain under which Section and under which Act interest could be demanded. In the present case, imported raw materials were clandestinely removed and not the finished goods manufactured out of it. The correct provision in such a case would have been to invoke the relevant provisions of the Customs Act. The Commissioner failed to do so. Interest demanded vaguely is set aside.

    • In which case? Would you please provide the specifics of the very order passed by Commissioner to help me understand the case in totality? You can email me on the support.

  2. The learned advocate assailed the order of the Commissioner, laying a lot of emphasis on the lack of jurisdiction of both the show cause notice issuing authority and the adjudicating authority. Me argued that a Deputy Director of DGCEI has no jurisdiction to issue a show cause notice as he was not appointed as a proper officer. In any case when suppression with an intent to evade duty is alleged even under normal period of limitation to demand duty, the proper officer is the Commissioner who has to issue a notice and in this case a Deputy Director of DGCEI had issued the notice; that warehousing licence was issued by an Assistant Commissioner and he is the proper officer to adjudicate the case and when Section 28 of the Customs Act was invoked, the officer who originally cleared the goods in the Customs House was the proper officer and not the Commissioner of Central Excise and that the proceedings initiated and conducted by officers who have no jurisdiction are bad in law. On merits he argued that penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act cannot be imposed when duty is demanded under the Customs Act ; that order of confiscation under Section 111 of the Customs Act without mentioning the relevant clause under that section is untenable; that interest cannot be demanded under Section 11AB read with Section 28AB of the Central Excise Act and Customs Act respectively cannot be demanded and that duty on the shortages of imported goods is demanded without any evidence that the goods were clandestinely removed.

Comments are closed.