Remission of duty for fire-destroyed goods upheld where accidental electrical short circuit was independently corroborated.

Remission of duty was held admissible for finished and semi-finished goods destroyed in a fire because the record consistently showed the incident was accidental and caused by an electrical short circuit. Independent findings by the police, fire service, insurer's investigators, and insurer inspection supported that conclusion, while the allegation that the fire was avoidable lacked corroboration. Earlier preventive measures after a prior fire were noted, and a later tariff report was not preferred over the pre-fire inspection. The fact that some goods were outside the bonded store room did not change the position where the loss was by fire within the factory premises; the demand for duty, interest, and penalty could not be sustained.

---

---

Issues: Whether remission of duty was admissible in respect of finished and semi-finished goods destroyed in a fire, and whether the consequential demand of duty, interest, and penalty could be sustained.

Analysis: The materials on record showed that multiple independent authorities, including the police, fire service, insurance-related investigators, and the insurer's inspection, had found that the fire was accidental and attributable to an electrical short circuit. The allegation that the fire was avoidable was not supported by corroborative evidence. The record also showed that preventive measures had been taken after the earlier fire, and the reliance placed on the later tariff report was not preferred over the pre-fire inspection by the insurer's representatives. The finding that some goods were outside the bonded store room did not alter the position, as the major portion of the goods was within the factory premises and the loss itself was by fire.

Conclusion: Remission of duty was admissible and the demand of duty, interest, and penalty could not be sustained.

---