9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (8) TMI 441X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order]. This appeal arises out of and is directed against the Order-in-Appeal No. 167/98, Cus., dated 30-12-1998, passed by the Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise (Appeals), Bangalore. 2 The Assistant Commissioner as per his order confirmed a demand of Rs. 15,883/- under Section 45(3) due to loss/pilferage while the goods were under the custody of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t is proved by the Department that there was a pilferage of the imported goods in the custody of the custodian. Burden lies on the Department and since burden has not been discharged, there is no justification for demanding duty. Section 45(3) of the Customs Act which reads as under : [(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, if any imported goods are pilfe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in ignoring the said inspection report observing that the report does not mention the condition in which the packages were found so as to deny the velocity due to the report, is equally unreasonable and unsustainable. He submitted that the goods were damaged even at the time of receipt of the goods and in view of this position the goods were directly sent to the Open Damage Room as can be seen fro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rt on the date of receipt of the goods, and on inspection it was found that there was a shortage, pilferage can be attributed to the custodian and as it was rightly done in raising the demand from the custodian. 6. I have carefully considered the submissions made by both sides. I find that the copy of the import bonding register was not placed before the authorities below as rightly pointed out ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
