2021 (4) TMI 356 - HC - Customs

Direction to re-assess the goods in Bill of Entry - Refund the amount for missing pallet within a reasonable time frame - HELD THAT - The Airport Authority of India was responsible for safe keeping of the imported goods as per Regulation 6(i) of the Handling Cargo in Customs Area Regulations, 2009. Airport Authority of India was the custodian of the imported goods as per Handling Cargo in Customs Area Regulations, 2009 - The imported goods were lost while in the custody of Airport Authority of India after assessment and payment of duty but before they could be physically delivered to the petitioner by the Airport Authority of India. In this case, the amendment sought for is based on the documents that were available before the import. Since the imported lost goods were never cleared, the petitioner was entitled to have the subject Bill of Entry amended for the purpose of refund under Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962 subject to other safeguards under Section 27 of the Customs Act,1962. Further, to have the refund processed, the Bill of Entry has to be re-assessed - Petition allowed.

Issues:
1. Re-assessment of goods in Bill of Entry
2. Refund claim for missing pallet
3. Applicability of Customs Act provisions
4. Liability for customs duty payment
5. Responsibility for safe custody of imported goods

Re-assessment of goods in Bill of Entry:
The petitioner imported goods and filed Bill of Entry for assessment. However, one pallet went missing after customs duty payment. The petitioner requested re-assessment for refund, citing the Supreme Court decision in a similar case. Despite no response from the authorities, the petitioner pursued the matter through representations and legal avenues.

Refund claim for missing pallet:
The missing pallet, valued at a significant amount, was reported stolen within the Air Cargo Complex. The petitioner sought refund based on the theft and subsequent insurance claim. The petitioner argued for re-assessment of the Bill of Entry to facilitate the refund process, emphasizing the need for proper documentation and compliance with legal provisions.

Applicability of Customs Act provisions:
The petitioner relied on Sections 13, 23, and 149 of the Customs Act, 1962, to support the claim for non-payment of duty due to pilferage and entitlement to remission of duty in case of loss or theft of imported goods. The legal counsel for both parties presented arguments concerning the interpretation and application of these statutory provisions in the context of the case.

Liability for customs duty payment:
The respondents contended that the petitioner was liable to pay customs duty as the goods were assessed and cleared for delivery before the theft occurred. Reference was made to a Tribunal decision to support the position that duty payment was mandatory in such circumstances. The responsibility for customs duty payment and losses due to pilferage was debated, focusing on the role of the Airport Authority of India.

Responsibility for safe custody of imported goods:
The judgment highlighted the regulatory framework placing the responsibility for the safe custody of imported goods on the Airport Authority of India. The loss of the imported goods while in the custody of the Airport Authority raised questions regarding liability and the subsequent legal implications for duty payment and refund claims.

In conclusion, the High Court allowed the writ petition, emphasizing the entitlement of the petitioner to seek re-assessment and refund based on the circumstances of the case, the applicable provisions of the Customs Act, and the regulatory responsibilities of the Airport Authority of India. The judgment underscored the importance of adherence to legal procedures, documentation, and statutory safeguards in customs matters.

← Previous Next →