Remission of duty for fire-destroyed goods cannot be denied on negligence inquiry beyond Rule 49

Remission of duty for goods destroyed by fire could not be refused on a negligence-based inquiry when the destruction by fire was undisputed. Rule 49 confined the proper officer to determining whether the goods were lost or destroyed by natural causes or unavoidable accident and were not otherwise accounted for under the Rules; an examination of whether the fire could have been prevented or whether adequate precautions were taken went beyond that scope. The denial of remission was therefore unsustainable, and relief was due to the assessee.

---

---

Issues: Whether remission of duty could be denied for goods destroyed by fire on the ground that negligence or preventability on the part of the assessee took the case outside Rule 49.

Analysis: Rule 49 permitted remission where goods were lost or destroyed by natural causes or unavoidable accident and were not accounted for in the manner provided by the Rules. The issue for the proper officer was confined to whether the loss or destruction fell within the rule. An enquiry into whether the fire could have been prevented, or whether the assessee had made adequate arrangements to avoid such accident, was beyond the scope of the rule. Since the occurrence of fire and destruction of goods was not in dispute, the refusal of remission on a negligence-based approach travelled beyond the statutory provision.

Conclusion: The denial of remission was unsustainable and the assessee was entitled to relief.

---