Customs duty remission under Section 23 does not extend to theft from bonded warehouse, Madras HC notes

Imported goods alleged to have been stolen from a bonded warehouse were held not to fall within Section 23 of the Customs Act, 1962, because remission is available only where goods are shown to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector to have been lost or destroyed before clearance for home consumption. The Court declined to extend that language to theft, noting that the provision does not refer to stolen goods and that the facts did not bring the case within its scope. A prior Division Bench ruling under a different rule was also found inapplicable to remission under Section 23.

---

---

Issues: Whether imported goods alleged to have been stolen from a bonded warehouse could be treated as goods 'lost or destroyed' so as to attract remission of duty under Section 23 of the Customs Act, 1962.

Analysis: Section 23 permits remission only where imported goods are shown to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs to have been lost or destroyed before clearance for home consumption. The petitioner sought to extend that language to theft, but the Court found that the provision does not mention theft and the words used in the section do not, on the facts presented, cover a case of theft from a bonded warehouse. The petitioner also failed to establish that the earlier Division Bench ruling, rendered in the context of a different rule, assisted the claim for remission under Section 23.

Conclusion: The claim for remission was not accepted and the writ petition was dismissed.

---