2003 (5) TMI 314 - AT - Customs

Imported Goods Storage Requirements Upheld

SUPER CHEMICAL CORPORATION Versus COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CHENNAI

The Tribunal upheld the rejection of the appeal, emphasizing the importance of adhering to storage requirements for imported goods and the consequences of ... Abatement of duty - Warehoused goods - Damage/deterioration to the goods Issues:1. Rejection of appeal based on wilful negligence in storing goods in a public bonded warehouse.2. Applicability of Section 22(2) of the Customs Act for re-determining value and duty of deteriorated goods.3. Interpretation of provisions regarding storage conditions and negligence under Customs Act.Issue 1: Rejection of appeal based on wilful negligence:The appeal was filed against the Order-in-Appeal that rejected the appellant's claim due to wilful negligence in storing goods in a public bonded warehouse. The Commissioner (Appeals) held that the appellants were aware that the imported goods required storage in a controlled temperature atmosphere. The appellant failed to select a warehouse with the necessary temperature control, which led to the deterioration of the goods. The Commissioner concluded that keeping goods in normal conditions showed wilful negligence on the part of the appellant. As per Section 22(1)(c) of the Customs Act, no benefit could be extended to the appellant due to this negligence.Issue 2: Applicability of Section 22(2) for re-determining value and duty:The appellant argued that they should be entitled to benefits under Section 22(2) of the Customs Act, which allows for re-determining the value and duty of deteriorated goods. The appellant referenced a circular by the Dept. of Revenue acknowledging the possibility of deterioration in government warehouses. However, the Tribunal noted that Section 22(2) would only be applicable after meeting the requirements of Section 22(1)(c). Since the appellants were found negligent under Section 22(1)(c), no re-determination of value and duty could be granted under Section 22(2).Issue 3: Interpretation of provisions regarding storage conditions and negligence:The Tribunal agreed with the Commissioner's findings that the appellant had failed to take necessary precautions or inform the Department about the possibility of damage to the goods. The appellant's request to shift the goods to a customs godown after deterioration was not considered significant as the damage was attributed to their negligence. The Tribunal affirmed the Commissioner's decision that no benefit could be extended to the appellant under the Customs Act due to their wilful negligence in storing the goods in unsuitable conditions. Therefore, the appeal was rejected based on the provisions of the Act.In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the rejection of the appeal, emphasizing the importance of adhering to storage requirements for imported goods and the consequences of negligence in selecting appropriate storage facilities. The judgment highlighted the significance of compliance with statutory provisions and the implications of wilful negligence in such cases.