File Copyright Online - File mutual Divorce in Delhi - Online Legal Advice - Lawyers in India

The Impact Of IBC On the Customs Act

Sundaresh Bhatt, Liquidator of ABG Shipyard v/s. The Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs

ABG Shipyard's "Corporate Debtor" worked in the shipbuilding industry. It used to regularly import various materials as part of its operations in order to build ships that would eventually be exported. The ABG Shipyard stored some of these items in custom-bonded warehouses in Gujarat and Maharashtra container freight stations. Bills of entry for warehousing were submitted on time.

The ABG Shipyard also benefited from an Export Promotion Capital Goods Scheme (EPCG Scheme) and received an EPCG License for the warehousing of the goods under it. The CD took advantage of other related schemes/notifications, but did not pay the required customs duty.

A section-9 application was filed by ICICI Bank against the ABG Shipyard at the Ahmedabad NCLT for the initiation of a corporate insolvency resolution process (CIRP). The ABG Shipyard was subject to the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process ("CIRP") by the NCLT, Ahmedabad, on August 1, 2017, and Sundaresh Bhatt was chosen to serve as the Interim Resolution Professional(IRP). A moratorium under IBC Section 13(1)(a) was also proclaimed by the NCLT in the same order.

On April 25, 2019, the NCLT issued an order of liquidation process against the ABG Shipyard in accordance with Section 33(2) of the IBC. According to the aforementioned order, the NCLT declared that the earlier moratorium imposed under Section 13(1)(a) of the IBC shall expire as a result of Section 14(4) of the IBC taking effect. However, a new directive prohibiting the initiation of any lawsuit by or against the ABG Shipyard was issued pursuant to Section 33(5) of the IBC. NCLT also appointed IRP as the liquidator.

In accordance with Section 60(5) of the IBC, Sundaresh Bhatt (IRP) filed I.A. No. 474 of 2019 with the NCLT, asking for a direction to release the ABG Shipyard's warehoused goods on July 1st. The NCLT approved I.A. No. 474 of 2019, on February 25, 2020, and issued the following instructions:
  1. The respondents must be granted unhindered access to remove the material from the customs-bonded warehouses without raising any objections or needing to pay customs fees.
  2. The respondents are free to file their claim with the Applicant-Liquidator regarding the customs duty charges that are due on the release of materials that are a part of the ABG Shipyard company (in liquidation), in accordance with the provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code of 2016 and the law.
  3. Within two weeks of receiving an authenticated copy of this order from the liquidator, the Customs Department must permit the removal of goods or material.

The Adjudicating Authority directed the release of certain goods lying in the Customs Bonded Warehouses without payment of customs duty and other levies.

Following the aforementioned judgment, the ABG Shipyard sold the items that were being stored in Surat for a sum of Rs. 169.11 crores. The sale of the goods that are currently being stored in Dahej, Gujarat, is being contested before this court in C.A. Nos. 7722 and 7731 of 2021.

On March 4, 2021, the CBITC (respondent) appealed a decision made by the NCLT on February 25, 2020, to the NCLAT. On November 22, 2021, the NCLAT passed the impugned order, whereby it allowed the appeal filed by the respondent and set aside the directions of the NCLT requiring the respondent to release the warehoused goods into the possession of the ABG Shipyard without seeking the customs dues. The NCLAT instead directed that the warehoused goods be "released or disposed of as per applicable provisions of the Customs Act by the Proper Officer".

The NCLAT granted the respondent's appeal after determining that the items in the customs-bonded warehouse were not considered ABG Shipyard assets because the ABG Shipyard had neither made any claims for the items following their import nor had the bills of entry for some of the aforementioned items been cleared. The NCLAT ruled that the ABG Shipyard, which was the importer, had given up ownership of the imported goods by failing to file the aforementioned bills of entry.

The NCLAT holds that the Customs Act's Sections 48 and 72 are deemed to have rendered the ABG Shipyard's title to the imported goods invalid. The respondent therefore has the right to sell the goods and collect the taxes due.

According to the NCLAT, "imported goods," which are subject to customs duty, are given a different treatment because paying the duty is an unavoidable consequence of importing the goods rather than the ABG Shipyard's responsibility. The ABG Shipyard cannot be in a stronger position than the respondent, who represents or seizes assets that the ABG Shipyard could not have acquired on its own.

Therefore, customs duty must be paid before the goods can be released from storage. According to the NCLAT, the Customs Act is a thorough piece of legislation that clearly states that goods in storage cannot be released until import duties have been paid. By submitting claims using "Form C" to the ABG Shipyard, the respondent does not automatically forfeit the ability to control the stored goods.

The NCLAT ruled that because the ABG Shipyard had abandoned the goods before the insolvency process began, the Customs Authority now owned the goods.

The ABG Shipyard filed a civil appeal against the contested decision after feeling wronged by the NCLAT's earlier decision. Speaking on behalf of the ABG Shipyard, Mr. Arvind Datar, learned senior counsel, cited Section 48 of the Customs Act and clarified that it only applies to goods that the importer has neither cleared nor warehoused. Therefore, the goods are owned by the ABG Shipyard. It has subsequently admitted that the ABG Shipyard is the owner by providing notice in accordance with Section 72 of the Customs Act and submitting its claim to the liquidator.

No transfer to the respondent is implied by Sections 72 or 48 of the Customs Act. Furthermore, the respondent has never been informed that the ABG Shipyard has given up ownership of the goods. Given that the respondent's statutory obligation under Section 142A of the Customs Act is expressly subordinate to the IBC, the respondent was unable to exercise its right under that Act. Sections 14 and 33 of the IBC are violated by the respondent's possession of the goods of the ABG Shipyard.

IBC Section 14(1)(a) expressly forbids commencing or pursuing legal action against the ABG Shipyard while the moratorium is in force. In addition, Section 14(1)(c) forbids the foreclosure, recovery, or enforcement of any security interest against the ABG Shipyard.

It should be noted that this issue has become important because the customs authorities are trying to sell the goods that are being stored on behalf of the ABG Shipyard, which is in the process of liquidating its assets. In order to exercise this authority, the respondent has relied on a few provisions of the Customs Act. This is fiercely contested by the ABG Shipyard in this case, who claims that once an insolvency proceeding has been initiated, the IBC automatically applies and supersedes any other statutes that give property charges priority.

This legal query has not received a direct response from the NCLAT. Instead, it has delved into the case's facts to highlight how the IBC differs from the Customs Act in terms of applicability. Section 14 of the IBC prescribes a moratorium on the initiation of CIRP proceedings and their effects. The moratorium has a number of objectives, one of which is to keep the assets of the ABG Shipyard in one location throughout the insolvency resolution process and to facilitate the orderly execution of the processes required by the statute. Imposing a moratorium is one way to enable Section 14(1)(a), (b), and (c) of the IBC to protect the ABG Shipyard from financial assaults.

This is done to give the ABG Shipyard some breathing room, enable it to continue operating normally, and help it rebuild its credit. Any other interpretation would breach this barrier and harm the desired outcome. The ABG Shipyard shall not commence any action in court or otherwise, except as provided in Section 52, after the issuance of a liquidation order.

The liquidator is permitted to file a lawsuit or take other legal action on behalf of the ABG Shipyard, but only with the adjudicating authority's prior approval, according to the terms of the agreement. Even if a company enters liquidation, this moratorium remains in effect. It is important to note that the IBC, which was passed more recently, clearly supersedes the Customs Act. This is abundantly clear from a reading of Section 142A of the Customs Act.

As a result, Section 238 of the IBC also formally acknowledges a comparable exception set forth under the Customs Act. Furthermore, it should be noted that Section 238 of the IBC expressly supersedes any legal provisions that conflict with it.

There would be a blatant violation of Sections 14 or 33(5) of the IBC if demand notices were sent out to seek enforcement of customs dues during the moratorium period. This is so because the demand notices are the beginning of formal legal action against the ABG Shipyard.

The foregoing analysis would be incomplete unless it is considered that the scope of the respondent authorities during the IBC's moratorium period. The only action the government can take is to figure out what taxes, interest, fines, or penalties are owed. The authority is not permitted to enforce a claim for recovery or levy interest on the tax due during the moratorium.

We can conclude from the foregoing discussion that the respondent was only permitted to start the assessment or reassessment of the duties and other levies. They cannot begin a recovery in violation of IBC Sections 14 or 33(5) by crossing this line. The interim resolution professional, resolution professional, or liquidator, as applicable, has a responsibility to confirm the validity of the assessment and has been given sufficient power to challenge any assessment if he thinks it is excessive.

The order from NCLAT was revoked and held that abandoned imported goods lying in the customs warehouses for several years can be considered a part of the ABG Shipyard's (CD) assets. Written By: A.K.Raja, B.C.A.LL.B (HONS), Is A Trainee In The Graduate Insolvency Programme.

Law Article in India

Ask A Lawyers

You May Like

Legal Question & Answers

Lawyers in India - Search By City

Copyright Filing
Online Copyright Registration


How To File For Mutual Divorce In Delhi


How To File For Mutual Divorce In Delhi Mutual Consent Divorce is the Simplest Way to Obtain a D...

Increased Age For Girls Marriage


It is hoped that the Prohibition of Child Marriage (Amendment) Bill, 2021, which intends to inc...

Facade of Social Media


One may very easily get absorbed in the lives of others as one scrolls through a Facebook news ...

Section 482 CrPc - Quashing Of FIR: Guid...


The Inherent power under Section 482 in The Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (37th Chapter of t...

The Uniform Civil Code (UCC) in India: A...


The Uniform Civil Code (UCC) is a concept that proposes the unification of personal laws across...

Role Of Artificial Intelligence In Legal...


Artificial intelligence (AI) is revolutionizing various sectors of the economy, and the legal i...

Lawyers Registration
Lawyers Membership - Get Clients Online

File caveat In Supreme Court Instantly