9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Duty remission on missing goods from a customs bonded warehouse. 2. Interpretation of Sections 13, 23, and 72 of the Customs Act, 1962. 3. Application of Section 23 to pilfered goods. 4. Title relinquishment under Section 23(2) and duty liability. 5. Prematurity of duty demand under Notification 13/81. 6. Deferral of duty payment for 100% E.O.U. capital goods. Analysis: The appellant, a 100% E.O.U. in a Technology Park, reported missing computer parts from its factory, leading to a duty demand of Rs. 21,39,760.00 by Customs. The Assistant Collector confirmed the duty demand and imposed a penalty, which was remitted by the Collector (Appeals) except for the duty. The advocate argued for duty remission under Sections 13, 23, and 72, citing pilferage and loss, emphasizing no duty as goods were not ordered for home consumption and were missing from the bonded warehouse. The Tribunal noted that Section 23 applies to warehoused goods but excludes pilfered goods. The advocate's argument of employee pilferage was rejected, stating an outsider could have taken the goods, and title did not pass to the employee. The appellant's reliance on a previous case of natural loss was deemed inapplicable. The Tribunal upheld the lower authorities' findings that the appellant could not relinquish title to the missing goods, confirming duty liability. Regarding the prematurity of duty demand under Notification 13/81, the Tribunal held that duty payment should be on the depreciated value of the machinery as on the loss reporting date, with the duty rate at the time of import. The Tribunal recognized the intention behind the notification for duty deferment for 100% E.O.U. capital goods but concluded that the missing goods did not fall under this provision. However, the duty was to be calculated on the depreciated value, not the full value, and interest on duty payable was to be reduced accordingly. The Tribunal confirmed the duty demand with modifications, aligning with the principles of the notification. In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, confirming the duty liability on the missing goods but adjusting the calculation to the depreciated value at the time of loss reporting, in line with the duty rate at import, and reducing the corresponding interest payable.
|
