1990 (1) TMI 185 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against the order of the Collector of Customs and Central Excise rejecting the claim for refund of duty on imported goods due to shortages.
- Entitlement to relief by way of remission of duty under Sec. 23 of the Customs Act, 1962 based on survey report findings.
- Consideration of survey report as evidence and relevance of Customs authorities' involvement in the survey process.

Analysis:
The appellant imported certain parts of electric/mechanical tools from Germany and claimed a refund of duty on goods with shortages. The appeal challenged the order rejecting the refund claim, which was confirmed by the Collector of Customs and Central Excise (Appeals), Madras. The appellant's counsel argued that the Port Trust authorities and recognized surveyors found shortages in the goods, but the Customs authorities did not sign the survey report, leading to the rejection of the refund claim.

The main issue before the Tribunal was whether the appellant was entitled to relief by way of remission of duty for shortages of goods under Sec. 23 of the Customs Act, 1962. The Tribunal noted that the survey report by recognized surveyors confirmed the shortages, and the Customs authorities were present during the survey, although they did not sign the report. The Tribunal emphasized that the Customs authorities did not provide a definite finding against the appellant regarding the shortages.

The Tribunal relied on precedents, including judgments from the Bombay High Court and the West Regional Bench, which highlighted the importance of survey reports as relevant evidence. The Tribunal noted that the authorities below did not give any valid reason to disregard the survey report and that the Customs officers' absence from signing the report did not invalidate its evidentiary value. The Tribunal concluded that the appellant should be granted remission of duty based on the existing survey report in favor of the appellant.

In light of the legal principles established by the cited judgments and the absence of a definitive finding against the appellant, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal, providing consequential relief to the appellant in terms of remission of duty for the shortages identified in the survey report.