2007 (2) TMI 12 - HC - Customs

Remission of duty - Appellant demanded for benefit under Section 23of CA on the basis that the theft occurred in the bonded warehouse Authority declared appellant is not covered under Section 23 of the CA and accordingly not entitle for benefit

Summary

Issues:
Interpretation of Section 23 of the Customs Act in the context of remission for stolen goods.

Analysis:
The petitioner argued that the Division Bench judgment did not consider Section 23 of the Customs Act in relation to the remission claim. The authorities, including CEGAT, relied on the Division Bench judgment to deny the petitioner's remission claim under Section 23.

The court acknowledged that the Division Bench judgment was based on Rule 147 of the Central Excise Rules, not directly applicable to the present case. The petitioner sought remission under Section 23 for theft in their bonded warehouse. However, the court highlighted that Section 23 does not explicitly mention theft, focusing on goods being "lost" or "destroyed" before clearance for home consumption.

The court emphasized that the petitioner needed to establish that the theft fell within the scope of Section 23 to claim remission. The legal provision does not cover theft explicitly, raising the question of whether theft could be considered under the terms "lost" or "destroyed" in the Section.

Despite repeated opportunities, the petitioner's counsel failed to demonstrate how theft could be encompassed within the terms of Section 23. As a result, the court found no merit in the petitioner's argument and dismissed the Writ Petition, along with the connected W.M.P. No. 1875 of 2002, without imposing any costs.