9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (5) TMI 314X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ic bonded warehouse in normal conditions they could have opted for a warehouse where the control temperature ambiance was available and could have saved the goods from deterioration. It was in this background, the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) had not extended the benefit keeping in view the provisions as contained in Section 22(1)(c) of the Customs Act. 2. Ld. Consultant, Shri. M.S. Kumaraswamy submits that they had cleared 20 drums of Styrene Monomer from the warehouse and found that the goods have deteriorated within a period of hardly a month from the date of warehousing of the goods, which was on 1-6-95. The first consignment was cleared on 11-7-95. On 7-3-96, the appellants informed the department that the goods have deteriorated and t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the imported goods require particular temperature even after they came to know about the damaged goods after the removal of 20 drums of first consignment on 11-7-95. They kept mum for more than 8 months and it was only on 7-3-96, they wrote to the department and blamed the department for deterioration of the imported goods that the goods have not been stored at a particular temperature by the Customs authorities. Their letter dt. 1-8-96, asking the customs authorities to shift the goods from the bonded warehouse to the customs godown for which they were ready to bear the transportation charges is also of no consequence as the customs department had asked for the duty on the goods, where the bonding period was expired and goods deteriorated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g storage in normal conditions, getting the goods bonded in a public bonded warehouse in normal conditions shows wilful negligence on the part of the appellant/assessee. In view of the above position, no benefit can, therefore, be extended to them in view of the provisions of Section 22(2) of the Customs Act. As regards the plea that under Section 22(1)(c), the value should be re-determined keeping in view the damage on the goods, we do not agree with the argument made by the ld. Counsel inasmuch as, Section 22(2) would be applicable after they cross the threshold under Section 22(1)(c) of the Customs Act, ibid. We, therefore, do not find any infirmity in the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and the same is affirmed. The appeal is, there ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
