Pilferage and customs refund claims hinge on Section 13, while High Court rulings are not invariably binding on all Tribunal Benches.

Pilferage causing shortage before clearance for home consumption was treated as governed by Section 13 of the Customs Act, 1962, not Section 23(1), so the refund claim failed. The Tribunal held that where imported goods are not available at the time of clearance because of pilferage, Section 13 alone applies to the customs duty question. It also held that Customs authorities must respect High Court decisions, but a single High Court ruling is not invariably binding on all Tribunal Benches where the context differs or conflicting views exist. Reliance on the cited Delhi High Court decision was therefore rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether the claim for refund of customs duty on shortages caused by pilferage was governed by Section 23(1) of the Customs Act, 1962, or by Section 13 of the Customs Act, 1962, and whether the Delhi High Court decision relied upon by the appellants was binding on the Tribunal.

Analysis: The Tribunal held that where goods are not available to the importer at the time of clearance for home consumption and the non-availability is attributable to pilferage, Section 13 of the Customs Act, 1962 alone governs the matter. The reliance placed on the Bombay High Court decision in Godavaridevi Saraf was held to be misplaced because the observations there were made in a different context and did not lay down that every High Court decision is invariably binding on all Benches of the Customs Tribunal. The Tribunal further held that the Customs authorities must respect decisions of High Courts, but they are not bound by every High Court decision where conflicting views may exist or where the context is distinguishable.

Conclusion: The appellants' contention was rejected and Section 13 of the Customs Act, 1962 was held applicable; the claim for refund failed.

---