9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Claim for refund of duty paid on lost coils beyond the limitation period. 2. Appeal against rejection of refund claim by Asst. Commissioner. 3. Dispute regarding physical delivery of entire consignment to the importer. 4. Interpretation of out-turn report and certificates regarding the consignment. 5. Requirement of customs department survey for claim sanction under Section 23. 6. Equating "clearance for home consumption" with passing of clearance order. 7. Responsibility for safe custody of imported cargo by the Port Trust. Analysis: 1. The appeal involved a claim for refund of duty paid on 11 coils lost during storage beyond the limitation period of six months. The Asst. Commissioner rejected the claim due to lack of evidence of loss. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) found sufficient evidence supporting the claim, including certificates and expenses incurred in attempting to retrieve the coils. The Commissioner allowed the appeal, stating that the facts did not support the Asst. Commissioner's decision on limitation. 2. The key issue in the appeal was the physical delivery of the entire consignment to the importer. The Department contended that the consignment had been delivered, as per the Port Trust's out-turn report. However, the Commissioner found evidence supporting the claim of loss of 11 coils during storage. The Tribunal accepted the evidence presented, including the Port Trust's confirmation of the delivery of only 275 coils out of 286, supporting the claim of loss. 3. The Tribunal analyzed the interpretation of the out-turn report and certificates regarding the consignment. The report indicated no shortage in the quantity of coils landed, but further evidence, including letters confirming the loss of coils, supported the importer's claim. The Tribunal accepted the evidence presented, concluding that the coils were lost during storage within the custody of the Port Trust. 4. The Department argued for the requirement of a customs department survey for claim sanction under Section 23. However, the Tribunal disagreed, stating that the law does not mandate a survey for the satisfaction of loss. The Tribunal emphasized that Section 23 applies to goods lost or destroyed before clearance for home consumption, and satisfaction of loss by the Asst. Commissioner should lead to refund sanction. 5. The appeal also addressed the equating of "clearance for home consumption" with the passing of a clearance order. The Tribunal clarified that physical removal of goods for home consumption occurs after the clearance order is passed, distinguishing between the two events. The Tribunal referred to previous decisions to support this interpretation, emphasizing the distinct nature of clearance for home consumption. 6. Regarding the responsibility for safe custody of imported cargo, the Department highlighted a statement in the survey issued by the Port Trust, mentioning the importer's risk and responsibility. However, the Tribunal found that the plot in question was part of the Port Trust docks, and the importer was not accountable for the risk and responsibility of storage. The Tribunal concluded that the Port Trust, as the custodian of imported cargo, was responsible for ensuring safe custody, dismissing the appeal.
|
