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>Customs Act: Broad Interpretation of 'Lost' Supports Importers' Refund Claim</h1> <h3>GOVERNMENT MEDICAL STORES DEPOT Versus COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, BOMBAY</h3> The appeal involved a dispute over a claim for refund based on a shortage of imported goods. The Member allowed the appeal, overturning previous decisions ... - Issues:1. Claim for refund based on shortage rejected by Assistant Collector and Collector (Appeals)2. Interpretation of Sections 13 and 23 of the Customs Act, 19623. Applicability of Section 23(1) for remission of duty4. Disagreement with the decision of the South Regional Bench5. Legal interpretation of the term 'lost' under Section 23(1)Analysis:The appeal involved a dispute over a claim for refund based on shortage of goods imported by the appellants. The Collector of Customs (Appeal) Bombay confirmed the rejection of the claim by the Assistant Collector of Customs, citing that Section 13 of the Customs Act was not applicable as the out of charge order had been passed, and Section 23 was also deemed inapplicable. The facts were not disputed, as one drum was found damaged, leading to a shortage of 208 Kgs. The appellants argued that the loss occurred before actual physical clearance for home consumption, falling within Section 23(1) of the Act.During the appeal hearing, the appellants contended that the loss was established while the goods were in the custody of the Port Trust Authorities, before clearance for home consumption. The Customs authorities confirmed the loss, but the Departmental Representative argued that proof of pilferage before the out of charge order was essential for the claim. The Member (J) analyzed the situation, emphasizing that the loss was due to a leak in the drum, not pilferage. The Member disagreed with the South Regional Bench's view, highlighting that the importer's lack of control over goods until actual delivery supported the claim under Section 23(1).The Member further elaborated on the distinctions between Sections 13 and 23(1) of the Act. Under Section 13, the importer is not liable for duty on pilfered goods before clearance, while Section 23(1) requires duty payment but allows remission for losses before physical delivery. The Member referenced a Delhi High Court decision interpreting the term 'lost' broadly, supporting the appellants' claim for remission under Section 23(1).In conclusion, the Member allowed the appeal, overturning the previous orders and directing Customs Authorities to grant consequential relief to the appellants. The Member justified the decision by emphasizing the broader interpretation of 'lost' under Section 23(1 and the applicability of remission for losses occurring before physical delivery. The legal analysis provided clarity on the application of Sections 13 and 23(1) in cases of imported goods losses, supporting the appellants' entitlement to claim remission under Section 23(1).
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
