9911796707
TMI Blog1985 (5) TMI 170X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n 7-10-1980. After payment of duty, the applicants obtained the out of charge order on the Bill of Entry (Annexure B) from the Proper Officer (Deputy Office Superintendent, Accounts Department) under Section 47 of the Customs Act, 1962 in respect of the goods already examined in the Docks. 2. Subsequently, the Applicants on an inspection of the consignment in the Docks found the packages in a damaged condition and suspected shortage. They requested the Customs Department for a survey and obtained an Open and Inspection order from the scrutinizing appraiser of the concerned Assessment Group in the Custom House. This order was shown to the proper officer who had issued the out of charge order earlier, with a request to cancel the s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inalisation of the licensing aspect, the out of charge order was mechanically given and only subsequently the clearing agent found that there was shortage and then it was brought to the notice of the Deputy Office Superintendent (Accounts) who cancelled the Out of Customs Charge Order. It was contended that the applicants were entitled to refund either under Section 13 or under Section 23 of the Customs Act. The Collector of Customs (Appeals), by her Order No. C3/2292/81 dated 13-5-1983 dismissed the appeal relying on the provisions of Section 13 of the Customs Act 1962 (which provide that for a claim under that section shortages should be brought to the notice of the proper officer before an order for clearance for home consumption is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o pilferage. In these circumstances, this question will not arise from the facts of the case and the order of the Tribunal. 8. As regards question (iv), this has been dealt with in detail in Paragraph 10 of the order. Though this is a question of law, the limitation to the binding nature of such decisions is a settled one; hence no question of law arises from our order. We have also given in Paragraphs 8 and 9 of our order the detailed jurisdiction for our disagreement with the judgment in the Sialkot Industrial Corporation case. As regards Question No. 1 and 2, a reply to any one question will cover both questions. As the issue contested in this case is mainly about the validity of the cancellation of the out of charge order, the follow ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
