1990 (6) TMI 182 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal against orders passed by Collector of Customs and Central Excise.
2. Discrepancy in the quantity of imported LAM Coke.
3. Application of Section 23 of the Customs Act.
4. Contention regarding loss due to evaporation of water content.
5. Interpretation of contract terms and draft survey reports.
6. Comparison with previous legal decisions on similar cases.
7. Determination of duty remission eligibility.

Analysis:
1. The appellant, a Public Limited Company, filed an appeal against the orders confirming a demand of Rs. 1,75,552.74 by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise. The dispute arose from the discrepancy in the quantity of LAM Coke imported, where the appellant declared 10,000 M.T. but received 10,001.400 M.T., leading to a shortage during transportation and storage.

2. The appellant contended that the loss in weight of LAM Coke was due to the evaporation of water content, resulting in a shortage of 278.900 M.T. The appellant argued that this loss falls under Section 23 of the Customs Act, seeking remission of duty. The appellant relied on previous legal decisions where genuine shortages were considered eligible for duty remission.

3. The department, represented by the SDR, argued against duty remission, highlighting the terms of the contract with the supplier and emphasizing the final quantity determined by the draft survey report at the loading port. The department contended that the shortage was not due to any pilferage or clandestine removal, and Section 23 of the Customs Act was not applicable in this case.

4. The Tribunal analyzed previous legal decisions where losses or shortages in imported goods were considered for duty remission under Section 23 of the Customs Act. The Tribunal noted that the appellant ultimately received 9718.380 M.T. of LAM Coke after transportation, with a shortage of 4.200 M.T. during transit. The Tribunal found no evidence of pilferage or clandestine removal, applying the principles from previous cases to allow the appeal and set aside the Collector's order, granting the appellant consequential reliefs.

5. In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, ruling in favor of the appellant based on the application of Section 23 of the Customs Act and the absence of evidence supporting the department's contentions. The decision highlighted the importance of considering genuine shortages in imported goods for duty remission, as established in previous legal precedents.