9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Duty remission claim rejection under Section 45(3) of the Customs Act for missing personal computer. 2. Duty demand confirmation under Section 45(3) of the Customs Act for stolen automation electroplating parts. Analysis: 1. The appeals arose from the rejection of the appellants' duty remission claim for a missing personal computer under Order-in-appeal No. 22/2002. The duty demands of Rs. 44,496/- and Rs. 29,442/- were confirmed by the adjudicating authority under Section 45(3) of the Customs Act, alleging pilferage within the appellants' custody. The appellants contended that the personal computer was not shipped by the shipper, as evidenced by the examination report on the Bill of Entry. The report indicated the missing computer, challenging the authorities' conclusion of pilferage. After careful consideration, it was found that the personal computer was indeed missing upon examination in the presence of the Clearing House Agent (CHA). The tribunal allowed the appeal, stating that the duty of Rs. 44,496/- was not payable as the computer was not shipped to the assessee, as per the examination report. 2. Regarding the appeal arising from OIA 99/97 concerning the demand of Rs. 29,442/- for 45 automation electroplating parts, the appellants claimed that the parts were stolen or pilfered. However, they failed to provide evidence supporting this claim. The contention that faulty forklift handling caused the spillage of contents was not substantiated with any proof. The tribunal noted the absence of evidence establishing pilferage during lifting/handling of the parts. The lower authority's finding of established pilferage beyond doubt was upheld. As per Section 45(3) of the Customs Act, the custodian is responsible for the duty on stolen goods. Therefore, the demand of Rs. 29,442.00 was confirmed, and the appeal was dismissed.
|
