2008 (11) TMI 476 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues involved: Appeal against Commissioner's order rejecting remission of customs duty u/s 23 of the Customs Act due to theft of imported goods and disputing the value of goods for duty calculation.

Summary:
The appeal was made against the Commissioner's order dated 25-11-2005, concerning the theft of imported goods by the appellant, a manufacturer in the NOIDA Export Processing Zone. The appellant imported sophisticated equipment in January and February 2004 for manufacturing Image Intensifier tubes, Computer Aided optical designs, and software. The thefts occurred on 11-4-04 and 16-4-04, resulting in the loss of goods valued at Rs. 38,40,876/- with customs duty foregone amounting to Rs. 15,05,628/-.

The appellant sought remission of customs duty u/s 23 of the Customs Act, which was denied by the Commissioner. The duty demand of Rs. 28,73,236/- along with interest @ 20% was confirmed, based on a value of goods at Rs. 73,29,686/-. The appellant's representative acknowledged that theft cases do not qualify for remission as per precedent. However, he contested the adopted value, arguing that the duty demand should align with the duty foregone on the stolen goods at the time of import. He also challenged the interest rate, claiming it should be 15% per the relevant Notification.

The DR highlighted that the value adopted was based on the FOB value of export or value of clearance in DTA of similar goods. The police complaints filed by the appellant indicated the stolen goods were manufactured at their factory and intended for shipment to another entity. The Tribunal acknowledged the denial of remission but directed a reconsideration of the duty amount and interest rate, as these aspects were not addressed by the Commissioner due to the focus on remission eligibility. The appellant will have an opportunity to present their case before a fresh decision is made.

In conclusion, the appeal was allowed for remand, emphasizing a review of the duty quantum and interest rate, with the appellant's participation in the process.