9911796707
|
Home
Issues: Liability for customs duty on pilfered goods.
In this case, the main issue was whether the appellant could be held liable for customs duty on undenatured alcohol that was found short due to pilferage while under the custody of the appellant. The Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs (Appeals) had upheld the demand for customs duty of Rs. 67,10,176 on the pilfered goods. The appellant argued that since the goods were confiscated by customs authorities, they should not be held responsible for the shortage. However, the Tribunal rejected this argument, stating that confiscation only transfers ownership, not custody, and as per Section 45(3) of the Customs Act, the custodian (in this case, the port authorities) is liable for duty on pilfered goods while in their custody. The Tribunal further noted that the port authorities informed customs about the pilferage after a significant delay, and a physical re-weighment was carried out much later. The appellant's claim that the pilferage might have occurred before the relevant date in the Customs Act was dismissed, as the liability for custodians was inserted in the Act before the alleged pilferage. Therefore, the Tribunal held that the appellant was indeed liable for the customs duty on the pilfered goods. Ultimately, the Tribunal concluded that there was no basis to interfere with the lower authorities' decision, upholding the demand for customs duty on the pilfered goods and rejecting the appeal. The judgment was pronounced on 20-9-2006 by Ms. Jyoti Balasundaram, Vice-President of the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Mumbai.
|
