9911796707
TMI Blog1990 (11) TMI 245X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n Rings containing in six cases. Out of these cases Case No. 556281/03 landed at Haldia Port and was appraised by the Customs appraisers on 25-4-1980 and could not be taken delivery of from the port authorities on the same date due to dock-labour strike. When the strike was called off the appellants approached the dock staff on 10-5-1980 to take delivery of the cargo in question, but the same could not be traced out anywhere in the docks. 3. The appellants lodged a claim with the Assistant Collector (MCD) vide their letter No. Cal/Clm/4005/70/80/1314 dated 8/10-7-1980. The Calcutta Port Trust in their letter No. NTO/S/233/895 dated 12-1-1981 finally informed that the case in question was landed from the vessel on 12-4-1980 and was reporte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d for home consumption and therefore, the case should have been dealt with under Section 23 of the Customs Act,1962 and Sec.13 is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case. It was, therefore, contended that the goods were pilfered before the clearance of home consumption, that is, while they were in the custody of the Port Trust Authorities and hence Section 23 is applicable. In support of his contention he relied on the following decisions : (i) 1979 (4) E.L.T. (J 329) in the case of Sialkot Industrial Corporation, Meerut v. Union of India and Another; (ii) 1985 (21) E.L.T. 881 (Tribunal) in the case of Indian Oil Corporation v. Collector of Customs, Bombay; (iii) 1984 (18) E.L.T. 358 (Tribunal) in the case of M/s. H ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... are pilfered before any order for home consumption has been passed. But if the goods are pilfered after the passing of the order but before the goods are actually cleared then Sec. 23 applies and there is no valid reason for drawing a distinction that the duty will be liable to be remitted if the goods are cleared after the payments of the duty and before their actual clearance, lost or destroyed in any other manner excepting their theft. Their Lordships held that the expression - lost or destroyed - is used in the generic and comprehensive sense and includes within it the loss to the party by pilferage. This decision was followed by the Tribunal in 1984 (18) E.L.T. 358 (Tribunal). In that decision at para 21 the Tribunal held as follows : ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... where it is shown , the words and figures Without prejudice to the provisions of Section 13, where it is shown shall be substituted; (b) after the words have been lost , the brackets and words (otherwise than as a result of pilferage) shall be inserted." The amended provision reads thus : Without prejudice to the provisions of Section 13, where it is shown to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs that any imported goods have been lost (otherwise than as a result of pilferage) or destroyed, at any time before clearance for home consumption, the Assistant Collector of Customs shall remit the duty on such goods. The note on Clause 48 of the Finance Bill, 1983 read as follows : Clause 48 seeks to amend Section ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
