9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
- Interpretation of Section 23 of the Customs Act, 1962 regarding relief for loss or destruction of goods before clearance for home consumption. Detailed Analysis: The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, CALCUTTA heard a Reference Application against an Order dated 1-9-1994 by the Department. The Department contended that the Tribunal's decision to grant relief to the respondents under Section 23 of the Customs Act was factually incorrect and inconsistent with the case presented by the respondent Company. The dispute arose from the discrepancy in the quantity of goods imported (11.550 M.T. of Coke as per manifest versus 12,076.420 M.T. measured upon clearance). The Department initiated proceedings for short-levy under Section 28 of the Act. The Tribunal, relying on a previous decision, granted relief under Section 23, which the Department argued was not applicable as the case involved short-levy, not loss or destruction as required by Section 23. The Departmental Representative argued that the Tribunal's decision was based on incorrect grounds, as the goods were not lost or destroyed but rather the discrepancy was due to inaccurate manifest details. The Department contended that since the respondents claimed to have imported 11,500 M.T., relief under Section 23 was not warranted. On the other hand, the respondent Company's representative argued that they had executed a Bond for the correct quantity and that the relief granted under Section 23 was justified based on the circumstances of the case. After considering the arguments, the Judge agreed with the Department's position. The Judge held that Section 23 of the Act applies only in cases of loss or destruction of goods before clearance for home consumption. Since the respondents did not claim any loss or destruction, invoking Section 23 for relief was deemed inappropriate based on the evidence available. The Judge highlighted that a finding inconsistent with the evidence gives rise to a question of law. Consequently, the Judge referred the question of law to the Hon'ble High Court regarding the correctness of granting relief under Section 23 in this case. In conclusion, the judgment raises the question of whether relief under Section 23 of the Customs Act was correctly granted to the respondents in a case involving a discrepancy in imported goods' quantity, leading to a referral to the High Court for resolution in accordance with Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962.
|
