1992 (2) TMI 224 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Delay in filing Reference Application.
2. Claim for relief by way of rebate on damaged cargo under Section 22 of the Customs Act, 1962.
3. Interpretation of Sections 22 and 23 of the Customs Act, 1962.
4. Requirement of Customs Authorities' involvement in determining remission of duty.
5. Distinction between abatement of duty on damaged goods under Section 22 and remission of duty on lost or destroyed goods under Section 23.

Analysis:
1. Delay in filing Reference Application:
The counsel for the Appellants requested condonation of a five-day delay in filing the Reference Application, which was granted by the Tribunal after considering the circumstances explained.

2. Claim for relief by way of rebate on damaged cargo under Section 22 of the Customs Act, 1962:
The Appellants contended that the Tribunal erred in rejecting their claim for rebate on damaged cargo under Section 22. The counsel argued that Customs supervision during unloading is mandatory as per Section 34 of the Customs Act. They cited case law to support their claim, emphasizing that survey in the presence of Customs Authorities is not obligatory for remission of duty on lost goods. However, the Department argued that Customs Authorities' involvement is essential for determining remission of duty under Section 22.

3. Interpretation of Sections 22 and 23 of the Customs Act, 1962:
The Tribunal analyzed the provisions of Section 22, which specify abatement of duty on damaged goods. The Tribunal referenced a previous case where the Tribunal upheld the denial of refund due to lack of Customs report on damage before clearance. The Supreme Court also emphasized the importer's burden to prove damage before clearance to avail abatement of duty under Section 22. The Tribunal differentiated between Sections 22 and 23, highlighting the separate provisions for damaged and lost/destroyed goods to avoid rendering any provision nugatory.

4. Requirement of Customs Authorities' involvement in determining remission of duty:
The Department argued that Customs Authorities' involvement is crucial for evaluating damage and determining duty abatement under Section 22. The Tribunal concurred, emphasizing the necessity of Customs assessment before clearance to apply abatement of duty.

5. Distinction between abatement of duty on damaged goods under Section 22 and remission of duty on lost or destroyed goods under Section 23:
The Tribunal rejected the Appellants' argument to consider their claim under Section 23, highlighting the statutory distinction between abatement of duty on damaged goods under Section 22 and remission of duty on lost or destroyed goods under Section 23. The Tribunal upheld that separate provisions exist for these contingencies and avoided interpreting the provisions in a way that renders any section ineffective.

In conclusion, the Tribunal rejected the Reference Application, stating that no legal issues necessitated a High Court reference. The decision was based on the clear provisions of the Customs Act, emphasizing the importance of Customs Authorities' involvement in assessing damage for duty abatement under Section 22 and maintaining the statutory distinction between Sections 22 and 23 to avoid rendering any provision redundant.