Holding

When goods have been cleared for home consumption under Section 46 and duty paid, they cease to be ‘imported goods’ for the purposes of Section 15(1)(b); thus Section 15(1)(a) governs and the duty rate is fixed on the date of presentation of the Bill of Entry, precluding the levy of any subsequent enhanced duty.

Summary

The respondent, Biecco Lawrie Ltd., imported 5,273.156 MT of Superior Kerosene Oil in May 1998, paid full duty and obtained clearance for home consumption under Section 46. Because the oil was highly combustible, it was stored in a private warehouse under Section 49 of the Customs Act. After the 1998‑99 budget raised the basic and special customs duties, the Commissioner of Customs issued a show‑cause notice demanding the differential duty on the stored oil. The Commissioner confirmed the assessment, but the Customs Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal set it aside, holding that once goods are cleared for home consumption and duty is paid, the enhanced rate cannot be levied. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined whether Section 15(1)(a) or 15(1)(b) governs such goods and whether they are “warehoused goods” under Chapter IX. The Court held that clearance for home consumption ends the status of the goods as “imported goods” for Section 15(1)(b); therefore Section 15(1)(a) applies, fixing duty at the rate prevailing on the date the Bill of Entry was presented. Consequently, the enhanced duty could not be imposed on the stored oil. The appeal was dismissed, leaving the Tribunal’s decision intact.

Issues considered

The appropriate provision of Section 15(1) (a or b) for goods cleared for home consumption but stored under Section 49.
Whether the enhanced basic and special customs duty rates can be levied on such goods.
Whether goods stored under Section 49 are deemed ‘warehoused goods’ subject to Chapter IX.

Legislation cited

Customs Act, 1962s. 130-E, s. 15(1)(a), s. 15(1)(b), s. 2(25), s. 27A, s. 46, s. 49, s. 68

Subjects

Customs dutySection 15Section 49Home consumptionWarehousingRate of dutyTariff valuationSuperior Kerosene OilOut of charge order

Judgment

}
f

t
[2008] 2 S.C.R. 257

_'", .. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CALCUTTA & ANOTHER A
V.
BIECCO LAWRIE LTD.
(Civil Appeal No. 2018-2019 of 2002)
FEBRUARY 1, 2008
B
[ASHOK BHAN, DALVEER BHANDARI &
r: P. SATHASIVAM, JJ.]

Customs Act, 1962 - ss. 15(1), 46 and 49 - Imported
goods-Superior Kerosene Oil cleared for home consumption c
upon payment of duty - Goods stored in warehouse under
provisions of s. 49 - Subsequent enhancement of rate of duty
. - Date for determination of rate of duty and tariff valuation of
imported goods - Held: U/s 15(1 )(a), once goods are cleared
for home consumption, duty would be payable on the date on
D
which Bill of Entry for goods is presented uls 46 - On facts,
goods cleared for home consumption on payment of entire
duty as applicable on that date - Bill of Entry for home
~ consumption was presented in the prescribed form prior to
enhancement of rate of duty - Customs Authorities passed
.,. out of charge order - Assessee had been clearing the goods E
from the storage tank as and when required - As such, goods
cannot held to be warehoused goods - Thus, s. 15(1 )(a) is
applicable - Enhanced rate of duty could not be levied.

_... The imported goods-Superior Kerosene Oil were F
cleared for home consumption by the Custom Officers
on the payment of full duty by the respondent- importer
as applicable thereon. The Bill of Entry was presented in
the prescribed form. The goods being highly combustible
material, the respondent filed an application under s. 49 G,
of the Customs Act, 1962 seeking permission for storage
-(
of goods in the same warehouse/tank. The goods
remained stored in warehouse. The respondent started
lifting the goods from the storage tanks from time to time
257 H
\
7~
258 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] 2 S.C.R.

~-
A as per the requirements of its customers. Subsequently
the rate of duty leviable on the goods was enhanced. The
appellant issued show cause notice to the respondent
for charging the enhanced rate of duty. The Commissioner
of Customs upheld the assessment detailed in the show
B cause notice. In appeal, the tribunal held that any
subsequent enhancement of the rate of duty could not
be levied on such goods. Hence the present appeal.
:t
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 Section 15(1) of the Customs Act, 1962
c provides for the date for determination of rate of duty and
tariff valuation of imported goods. Where the imported
goods are allowed to be warehoused under Section 68 of ...
the Act and are subsequently cleared from the warehouse,
section 15(1 )(b) provides that the rate as applicable on
D the date of actual removal of the goods from the
warehouse, is applicable. But where the goods are cleared
for home consumption under section 46, section 15(1 )(a)
provides that the duty payable would be on the date on ~+--
which the bill of entry in respect of such goods is
E presented. On the fulfilling of the requirements of section
68, section 15(1)(b) would cease to operate. [Paras 14, 20
,.
and 21] [265-F; 268-G; 269-F]
1.2 Section 49 provides that in the case of imported ..._
goods, whether dutiable or not, which have been cleared
F for home consumption on an application filed by the ).....

importer, the Assistant Commissioner of Customs or tile
Deputy Commissioner of Customs, on being satisfied that
the goods cannot be cleared within a reasonable time,
may permit the storage of such goods in a public
G warehouse, or in a private warehouse if facilities for
deposit in a public warehouse is not available and such )-
goods shall not be deemed to be warehoused goods for
the purposes of the Act and, accordingly, the pr9visions
of Chapter IX would not apply to such goods: Section 68
H falls in Chapter IX. Section 15(1 )(b) expressly refers to the
-+ COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CALCUTIA & ANOTHER 259
v. BIECCO LAWRIE LTD. [BHAN, J.]
--.,. clearance from the warehouse under section 68 and the A
same would not be applicable to the instant case. [Para
14] [266-C, D, E, F]
1.3 Section 15(1) provides for the rate of duty and
tariff valuation applicable to any 'imported goods'. The
term 'imported goods' is defined in Section 2(25) of the
B
Act to mean any goods brought into India from a place
J. outside India, but does not include goods, which have
been cleared for home consumption. [Para 15] [266-F, G]
2.1 In the instant case, the imported goods had been c
cleared for home consumption on 281h of May, 1998, they
ceased to be imported goods within the meaning of the
Act and the provisions of Section 15 (1)(b) could not be
applicable. [Para 15] [266-G, 267-A]
2.2 The Superior Kerosene Oil were cleared for home D
consumption upon payment of full duty thereon as
applicable on 281h May, 1998. The subsequent storage of
~ the goods in warehouse was under the provisions of
section 49 of the Cust~ms Act, 1962. Clearance of
warehouse goods for home consumption under section E
68 was complete prior to 2nd of June, 1998. The Bill of Entry
for home consumption had been presented in the
prescribed form much prior to the coming into force of
the amended provisions providing for enhanced rate of
duty. Not only the full duty stood paid by the respondent, F
-'· but the Customs Officer had also permitted clearance of
the goods for home consumption as is evident from the
endorsement made on the back of the bill of entries. As
such, the goods cannot be held to be the warehoused
goods and the same were allowed to be kept in the
G
warehouse only on account of an application made by
-~ the appellants in terms of the provisions of section 49 of
the Act. The respondents have been clearing the goods
from the storage tank as and when required. They were
permitted to store the goods in a private warehouse as if
H
260 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 2 S.C.R.
+-
-f"'--
A it was their own godown. The goods were stored in the
IBP storage tank under an agreement entered into by the
respondent with IBP and the storage charges were paid
by the respondent. Thereafter, ti1e Preventive Officer
Charges were discontinued to be levied. Where duty on
B the warehoused goods is paid and out of charge order
for home consumption is made by the proper officer in
compliance of the provisions of section 68, the goods -:1.
removed in smaller lots have to be treated as cleared for
home consumption. [Paras 14 and 20] [266-A, B; 269-A,
c C, D]
B,
2.3 Since the entire duty required to be paid by the
importer was paid and an out of charge order had been
passed by the Customs Authorities, nothing more
remained to be paid by the importer. Thus, the question
D of applicability of provisions of section 15 (1 )(b) becomes
irrelevant. The goods would be more appropriately
governed under section 15(1 )(a). The bill of entry was
.Jl'f
presented by the respondent on 20th of May, 1998 and
29th of May, 1998 and full duty was paid. The goods were
E got cleared on the payment of the entire duty as applicable
on that date. [Para 21] [269-E, F, G]
Bharat Surfactants (Private) Ltd. and Anr. vs. Union of
India (UOI) and Anr. 1989 (4) SCC 21; Shah Devchand and
Co. and another vs. Union of India and another AIR 1991 SC
F 1931; D. C. M. & Anr. vs. Union of India and another 1995 Supp )....

(3) SCC 223; Dhiraj Lal H. Vohra and Ors. vs. Union of India
and Ors. 1993 Suppl. (3) SCC 453; Union of India and Ors.
vs. Apar Private Ltd. and Ors. 1999 (6) SCC 117 - referred
to.
G
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos.
)- -
2018-2019 of 2002.
From the Judgment and final Order No. A-682, A-683.
KOL/2001 dated 9.8.2001 of the CEGAT at Kolkata in Appeal
H No. C/R-84/1999 and 116/1999.
-k \

COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CALCUTTA & ANOTHER 261
v. BIECCO LAWRIE LTD. [BHAN, J.]
---,.
Navin Prakash and B. Krishna Prasad for the Appellants. A
Bhaskar P. Gupta, Prateek Jalan and Ruby Singh Ahuja
for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
BHAN, J. 1. The present appeal has been filed under B
)--
,J'
Section 130-E of the Customs Act, 1962 (for short, "the Act")
against the judgment and final order dated 9th of August, 2001
-.' passed by the Customs Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate
Tribunal, ERB, Cal. in Appeal Nos. C/R-84 & 116/1999.
c
2. Respondent-assessee (hereinafter referred to as
'respondent') imported 5273.156 M.T. of Superior Kerosene
Oil (hereinafter referred to as 'SKO') on 15th of May, 1998. At
that time, the duty payable on importation of SKO was only the
countervailing duty of 10% ad valorem. The imported quantity
D
of SKO was stored in a private warehouse of Mis. IBP Ltd. at
Budge Budge at the port under the Bill of Entry No. 302(01L ).
a.
3. On 20th May, 1998, respondent filed Ex bond bill of Entry
• (to get them de-bonded) for home consumption for a quantity of
.
I

5140 M.T. The full amount of duty was paid thereon amounting E
to Rs.35,75,836/-. The proper officer endorsed on the reverse
(
of the Bills of Entry to the effect that the goods may be released
by the Officer-in-charge of the warehouse. The Officer-in-charge,
in turn, released the goods and made an endorsement to this
-' effect on the reverse of the Bill of Entry. F
1
4. Ex Bond bill of Entry for home consumption for quantity
of 133.156 M.T. was filed on 28th May, 1998. The full amount of
duty was paid thereon amounting to Rs.92,635/-. The proper
officer endorsed on the reverse of the Bill of Entry to the effect
that the goods may be released by the officer-in-charge of the G
- --(
warehouse. The officer-in-charge, in turn, released the goods
and made an endorsement to this effect on the reverse of the
Bill of Entry.

5. In view of the fact that SKO is a highly combustible
H
-)._-
262 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 2 S.C.R.
-t---
A material and cannot be taken out of storage tank to store
elsewhere, the respondent made an application to the Assistant
Commissioner of Customs, under Section 49 of the Act,
requesting him to permit storage of goods, which had been
cleared for home consumption, in the same warehouse/tank.
B 6. It may be mentioned here that the respondent had
obtained a registration certificate from the concerned Central -:\
Excise Authorities under Rule 174 of the Central Excise Rules
(for short, 'the Rules') in order to sell SKO to dealers/customers
who required an invoice for Modvat purposes. In the said
c registration certificate, it was clearly mentioned that SKO would
be stored by the respondent in IBP's storage tank at Budge
Budge. The respondent had also subsisting contract with IBP
Company Ltd., the owners of the storage tank for storage of
SKO belonging to the respondent in the said tanks. The
D respondent had paid hire charges for the said tank to IBP under
the agreement dated 22nd of October, 1997 which was further
extended by an agreement dated 7th of July, 1998. 4
'
7. According to the respondent, with effect from 28th of
May, 1998, upon clearance of the material for home ~-
E consumption, the appellant stopped levying, Preventive Officer
\
Charge (P.O. Charge), which is collected for supervision of the t

goods in warehouse, so long as they remain under the control
of Preventive Officer of Customs. That, after the duty was paid,
the control over the goods was lifted and no such charge was ,J._
F thereafter collected. Respondent, thereafter, started lifting goods ~
from the storage tank from time to time in accordance with the
requirements of its customers. During the period 28th of May,
1998 to 1st of June, 1998, the respondent lifted a quantity of ~
463.31 M.T. of SKO from the. storage taflk.
G
8. In the Budget for the year 1998-99, Basic Customs Duty )- -
and Special Customs Duty was levied on SKO @ 30% and 2%
ad valorem respectively. Thereafter, the Customs Authority (the
'appellant' hereinafter) withheld the clearance of SKO from the
said tank on the contention that th~ respondent was required to
H
COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CALCUTTA & ANOTHER 263
v. BIECCO LAWRIE LTD. [BHAN, J.]

pay Basic and Special Customs Duty @ 30% and 2% ad ,A
valorem and accordingly, wrote a letter to the respondent on
181h of June, 1998 contending that the differential duty would be
payable on SKO not physically lifted before 2nd of June, 1998.
Keeping in view the fact that lifting of goods was stopped by the
Customs Authorities, the respondent deposited under protest B
an amount of Rs.24,48,822/- towards Basic and Special
1"". Customs Duty on 1000 M.T. of SKO under the Customs Receipt
No. 1-1531 dated 25th of June, 1998. The respondent made a
further deposit under protest of Rs.12, 78, 115/- towards Basic
and Special Customs Duty on the quantity of SKO lifted between 0
2nd of June, 1998 and 5th of June, 1998.
9. A show-cause notice was issued by the appellant to the
respondent for charging the enhanced rate of duty. In the said
show-cause notice, the claim of the appellant was, inter alia,
for appropriation of the sum of Rs.12, 78, 115/- paid towards D
differential duty on the material removed between 2nd of June,
1998 and 5th of June, 1998, appropriation of the sum of
Rs.24,48,822/- deposited towards differential duty on 1000 M .T.
of SKO and for levy of enhanced rate of duty on the further
remaining quantity of SKO. The respondent deposited a further E
sum of Rs. 52,53,000/- on 3rd of August, 1998 under protest
Basic and Special Customs Duty towards balance quantity of
the said material lying in the storage of IBP. Respondent filed
his reply to the aforesaid show-cause notice dated 23rd of July,
1998. F
10. The Commissioner of Customs, Calcutta vide his order
dated 5th of November, 1998 confirmed the assessment as
detailed in the show-cause notice and also imposed a penalty
of Rs.5,000/- upon the respondent. The respondent being
aggrieved, filed statutory appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal G
accepted the appeal and set aside the order of the
Commissioner of Customs. It was held that once full duty has
been paid by the importer and the clearance for home
consumption has been permitted by the Customs Officers, any
subsequent enhancement of the rate of duty would not be H
264 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 2 S.C.R.

A leviable on the goods which remain stored in the warehouse
under the provisions of Section 49 of the Act.
11. After the passing of the order by the Tribunal,
respondent filed a miscellaneous application before the Tribunal
praying for a direction upon Customs Authorities to refund the
8 amount deposited. Tribunal by its order dated 1st of November,
2002 directed the Revenue Authorities to refund the amount of
duty inter alia in order to avoid uncalled for interest liability on
the public exchequer. In terms of the orders passed by the
Tribunal, a sum of Rs.99,89,938/- which was deposited under
C protest by the respondent, was refunded to it. Respondent,
thereafter, filed an application before the Customs Authorities
seeking payment of interest in terms of Section 27A of the Act
on the aforesaid amount for the period during which the said
sums were lying deposited with the appellant. The claim of the
D respondent on this account was for the sum of Rs.61 ;97,886/-.
As the appellant had, in the meanwhile, filed an appeal in this
Court, the appellant vide communication dated 15th of January,
2004 informed the respondent that the claim cannot be
considered due to pendency of the matter in this Court.
E 12. Counsel appearing for the Revenue contends that the
Tribunal fell in error of law as it failed to correctly appreciate the
import of Section 15(1 )(b) of the Act. According to him, the duty
payable for the warehoused goods is at the rate prevalent on
the date of removal of the goods from the warehouse under
F Section 68. According to him, in terms of Section 15(1)(b), the
"cause" is "the physical removal of goods from warehouse" and
the "effect" is the payment of duty for such removal of goods
and not otherwise. The Learned Senior Counsel appearing for
the respondent controverts the submissions made by the
G Learned Counsel appearing for the Revenue. He submits that
the Tribunal did not fall in any error while appreciating the
provisions of Section 15(1)(b). According to him, the present
case would fall under Section 15(1 )(a). By referring to Section
2(25) of the Act, it was contended that the expression "imported
H goods" means any goods brought in India but does not include.
-(-
COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CALCUTIA & ANOTHER 265
v. BIECCO LAWRIE LTD. [BHAN, J.]
--"t
goods which had been cleared for home consumption. Since, A
in the present case, goods had been cleared by the Customs
Officers for home consumption and out of charge order was
passed, provisions of Section 15(1 )(a) would be more
appropriately applicable in the present case.
13. Section 15(1) at the relevant time read as under: - B

T. "15. Date for determination of rate of duty and tariff
valuation of imported good~.-(1) The rate of duty and
tariff valuation, if any, applicable to any imported goods:
shall be the rate and valuation in force, - c
(a) in the case of goods entered for home consumption
under section 46, on the date on which a bill of entry
in respect of such goods is presented under that
section;
D
(b) in the case of goods cleared from a warehouse under
section 68, on the date on which the goods are
actually removed from the warehouse;
(c) in the case of any other goods, on the date of payment
of duty;· E
[Provided that if a bill of entry has been presented before
the date of entry inwards of the vessel or the arrival of
the aircraft by which the goods are imported, the bill of
entry shall be deemed to have been presented on the
__A
date of such entry inwards or the arrival, as the case may F
be.]"
14. Section 15(1) provides for the date for determination
of rate of duty and tariff valuation of imported goods. In the case
of goods cleared from warehouse under Section 68, Section G
-< 15{1 )(b) provides that the rate of duty and tariff valuation
\
applicable to any imported goods shall be the rate and valuation
in force on the date on which the goods are actually removed
from the warehouse. The relevant date for determination of rate
of duty and tariff valuation is the date on which a Bill of Entry in
H
266 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2008] 2 S.C.R.

A respect of such goods is presented for home consumption. In
-
the present case, the goods were cleared for home consumption
upon payment of full duty thereon as applicable on 28th May,
1998. The subsequent storage of the goods in warehouse was
under the provisions of Section 49. Clearance of warehouse
a goods for home consumption under Section 68 was, therefore,
complete prior to 2nd of June, 1998. The Billof Entry for home
consumption had been presented in the prescribed form much
prior to the coming into force of the amended provisions
providing for enhanced rate of duty. The import duty leviable ·.~

c had been paid and the order of clearance of the goods for home 1.
consumption had been made by the proper officer. On the
I
fulfilling of the requirements of Section 68, Section 15(1)(b) would ii
cease to operate. Section 49, provides that in the case of t-
imported goods, wheJher dutiable or not, which have been \-
cleared for home consumption on an application filed by the
0
importer, the Assistant Commissioner of Customs or the Deputy
Commissioner of Customs, on being satisfied that the goods
cannot be cleared within a reasonable time, may permit the
storage of such goods in a public warehouse, or in a private
E warehouse if facilities for deposit in a public warehouse is not
av·ailable and such goods shall not be deemed to be
warehoused goods for the purposes of the Act and,
accordingly, the provisions of Chapter IX shall not apply to
such goods. Section 68 falls in Chapter IX. Section 15(1 )(b)
expressly refers to the clearance from the warehouse under
F Section 68 and the same would not be applicable to the
present c~se.
15. Section 15(1) provides for the rate of duty and tariff
valuation applicable to any "imported goods". The term
G "imported goods" is defined in Section 2(25) of the Act to mean
any goods brought into India from a place outside India, but
does not include goods, which have been cleared for home
consumption. In view of the fact that the imported goods in the
present case had been cleared for home consumption on 2ath
of May, 1998, they ceased to be imported goods within the
H
I
I
!
-(
COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CALCUTIA & ANOTHER 267
v. BIECCO LAWRIE LTD. [BHAN, J.]
. -- ....
meaning of the Act and the provisions of Section 15(1 )(b)could A
not be applicable.
16. The Constitution Bench of this Court, in Bharat
Surfactants (Private) Ltd. and Anr. vs. Union of India (UOI) and
Anr. [(1989) 4 sec 21], observed as under: -
a
"...The provisions of Section 15 are clear in themselves.
J:
The date on which a Bill of Entry is presented under Section
46 is, in the case of goods entered for home consumption,
the date relevant for determining the rate of duty and tariff
valuation ... "(Para 14). 0
17. Following the Judgment of the Constitution Bench
referred to above,. this Court in Shah Devchand & Co. and
another vs. Union of India and another [AIR 1991 SC (1931)]
held as under: -
D
"In Bharat Surfactant's case it has been held that the rate
,.'\.., of duty and tariff valuation has to be determined in
accordance with Section 15(1) of the Customs Act. Under
Section 15(1 )(a), the rate and valuation is the rate and
valuation in force on the date on which the Bill of Entry is E
presented under Section 46. Thus all the contentions
raised in the cases in hand before us are fully covered by
the above-mentioned cases decided by the Constitution
Bench of this Court. In the result we find no force in any of
-~ the grou~ds raised in these cases and the same are
F
dismissed with no order as to costs."

18. Subsequent to this, a two-Judge Bench of this Court,
in D.C.M. & Anr. vs. Union of India & Anr. ((1995) Supp (3)
sec 223], held as under: -
G
"The first aspect to be noticed is that Section 12 opens

•
-.(
with the words "except as otherwise provided in this Act
or any other law for the time being in force". Thus, Section
12 is subject to Section 15 among others. Secondly,
Section 12 does not purport to prescribe the date with
H
>--
268 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008) 2 S.C.R.

f--f{-
A reference to which rate of duty shall be determined. It only
says that duties of customs shall be levied at such rate as
may be specified under the Customs Tariff Act on goods
imported. It is Section 15 that prescribes the da:te with
reference to which the rate of duty and tariff valuation of
B imported goods shall be determined. A reading of Section
15, 46 and 68 makes it clear that they provide an option
to the importer either to file a bill of entry for home i.
consumption straight away (in which case he has to pay
the duty determined with reference to that date) or to file
c a bill of entry for warehousing. In the latter case, the goods
are merely warehoused. The import duty will be levied at
the rate and on the basis of the valuation determined in
accordance with the provisions prevailing on the date of
clearance from the warehouse for which purpose the
importer has to file a fresh bill of entry for home
D
consumption. In other words, it is the date offiling the bill
of entry for home consumption which determines the rate
,,,.?
of duty in clauses (a) and (b) of Section 15. Inasmuch as
the matter is left to the option of the importer and also
because a uniform principle is adopted by the Act, as
E explained above, we see no room for any legitimate '
\
grievance of discrimination. There is also no presumption
that rate of duty always goes up. It may also go down, in
which case, the importer stands to gain."

F _ 19. The same principle was laid down by this Court in ~
Dhiraj Lal H. Vohra & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors. [1993
Suppl.(3) SCC 453) and in Union of India & Ors. vs. Apar Private
Ltd. & Ors. ((1999) 6 sec 117].
20. There is no dispute that where the imported goods
G are allowed to be warehoused under Section 68 of the Act and
)-
are subsequently cleared from the warehouse, the rate as ~
applicable on the date of actual removal of the goods from the
warehouse, is applicable. But where the goods are cleared for
home consumption under Section 46, the duty payable would
H be as on the date the goods were cleared for home
~:
COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CALCUTIA & ANOTHER 269
v. BIECCO LAWRIE LTD. [BHAN, J.]
--....-
consumption. In the present case, not only the full duty stood A
paid by the respondent, but the Customs Officer had also
permitted clearance of the same, as is evident from the
endorsement made on the back of the bill of entries. As such,
the goods cannot be held to be the warehoused goods and the
same were allowed to be kept in the warehouse only on account B
of an application made by the appellants in terms of the
f provisions of Section 49 of the Act. The respondents have been
clearing the goods from the storage tank as and when required.
They were permitted to store the goods in a private warehouse
as if it was their own godown. The goods were stored in the IBP c
storage tank under an agreement entered into by the respondent
r
~ with IBP and the storage charges were paid by the respondent.
-l Thereafter, the Preventive Officer Charges were discontinued
to be levied. Where duty on the warehoused goods is paid and
out of charge order for home consumption is made by the proper
D
officer in compliance of the provisions of Section 68, the goods
removed in smaller lots have to be treated as cleared for home
r-. consumption.
21. For the reasons stated above, we are of the view that
since the entire duty required to be paid by the importer has E
been paid and an out of charge order had been passed by the
Customs Authorities, nothing more remained to be paid by the
importer. In this view of the matter, the question of applicability
of provisions of Section 15( 1)(b) becomes irrelevant. The goods
would be more appropriately governed under Section 15(1)(a) F
~
which provides that in the case of goods entered for home
consumption under Section 46, the duty leviable would be as
on the date on which the bill of entry in respect of such goods is
presented. In this case, the bill of entry was presented by the
respondent on 20th of May, 1998 and 29th of May, 1998 and full
G
duty was paid. The goods were got cleared on the payment of
the entire duty as applicable on that date. Once, goods are
cleared for home consumption, the duty payable would be on
the date on which the Bill of Entry in respect of such goods is
presented, under Section 46.
H
270 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 2 S.C.R.

A 22. For the reasons stated above, we do not find any merit
in these appeals and dismiss the same leaving the parties to
bear their own costs.
23. The Customs Authorities now may proceed to decide
the application filed by the respondent for interest on the delayed
8 payment in accordance with law.
N.J. Appeals dismissed.

,•

..
1