TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Imported goods damaged in bonded warehouse not eligible for abatement claim due to negligence</h1> <h3>COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, MUMBAI Versus KORES (INDIA) LTD.</h3> The Tribunal differentiated the case involving damaged imported goods stored in a bonded warehouse from previous decisions, emphasizing the goods were ... Abatement of duty Issues:1. Claim for abatement of duty on damaged imported goods stored in bonded warehouse.2. Interpretation of Section 22(1)(a) and Section 22(1)(c) of the Act.3. Application of legal principles regarding abatement eligibility for warehoused goods.4. Consideration of negligence and accident in determining abatement claims.5. Impact of prolonged storage and exposure to elements on goods' condition.6. Relevance of storage conditions and importer's responsibility in abatement claims.7. Comparison with previous tribunal decisions on similar issues.Analysis:1. The case involved a claim for abatement of duty on cold seamless steel tubes imported in 1991 and stored in a bonded warehouse until 1997 due to alleged damage. The Assistant Commissioner rejected the claim attributing damage to negligence, while the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the claim based on custodian's negligence. The department appealed this decision.2. The Tribunal analyzed the applicability of Section 22(1)(a) and Section 22(1)(c) of the Act. It differentiated the current case from a previous decision, emphasizing that the goods in question were warehoused goods damaged before clearance for home consumption, falling under clause (c) of Section 22(1).3. Regarding the eligibility for abatement of duty on warehoused goods, the Tribunal deliberated on the definition of 'warehouse goods' and the expiration of the bond period. It highlighted the requirement that damage must result from an accident not due to negligence, emphasizing the distinction between accident and negligence in determining abatement claims.4. The Tribunal assessed the impact of prolonged storage on the goods' condition, noting that the damage was attributed to exposure to elements over seven years. It emphasized that the damage caused by negligence or default of the importer did not qualify as an accident under the legal framework.5. The judgment scrutinized the concept of accident in the context of goods' damage, rejecting the argument that environmental factors causing damage constituted an accident. It emphasized that the importer's failure to clear the goods promptly contributed to the damage, indicating negligence rather than an unforeseen event.6. The relevance of storage conditions and importer's responsibility was highlighted, indicating that the importer could have influenced the storage location. The Tribunal emphasized that the importer's awareness of open storage negated the argument of negligence solely on the custodian's part.7. The Tribunal compared the current case with previous decisions, noting the distinctions in applicability and outcomes. Ultimately, the department's appeal was allowed, setting aside the Commissioner (Appeals) decision and restoring the Assistant Commissioner's order, denying the abatement claim.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
