Remission of duty for fire-destroyed raw materials accepted where no negligence or carelessness was shown.

Remission of duty was held admissible for duty-free indigenous raw materials destroyed in a fire at the factory premises. The record did not discredit the assessee's explanation that reasonable precautions had been taken to safeguard the materials and that electrical installations were periodically checked. In the absence of evidence establishing negligence or carelessness in preventing the fire loss, the claim for remission could not be rejected on that basis.

---

---

Issues: Whether remission of duty was admissible in respect of duty-free indigenous raw materials destroyed in a fire accident in the factory premises.

Analysis: The raw materials were destroyed in a fire accident. The record did not contain material to discredit the assessee's explanation that precautions had been taken to safeguard the materials and electrical installations were periodically checked. No evidence was brought to establish negligence or carelessness on the part of the assessee in preventing the destruction by fire.

Conclusion: Remission of duty was admissible and the claim could not be rejected on the ground of negligence or carelessness.

---