Remission of duty for export goods stolen before export was allowed, and insurance compensation did not defeat the claim.

Export goods stolen before reaching the port of export were treated as lost in an unavoidable accident where the record showed no wilful act, negligence, or default by the assessee causing the theft. On that basis, the loss qualified for remission of duty under Rule 49 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, and duty and penalty were not payable. The fact that the goods had been examined, assessed, and allowed for export, and that proof of export was admitted, supported the remission claim. Receipt of insurance compensation in excess of the duty liability was held not to be a legal ground to deny remission or sustain the demand.

---

---

Issues: Whether duty and penalty were payable on export goods stolen before reaching the port of export, and whether remission of duty could be denied on the ground that the assessee had received insurance compensation.

Analysis: The goods had been examined, assessed, and allowed for export by the customs authorities, and proof of export had been admitted. The record did not show any wilful act, negligence, or default on the part of the assessee causing the theft. In such circumstances, theft before the goods reached the port of export was treated as an unavoidable accident, and the loss qualified for remission of duty under Rule 49 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The fact that insurance proceeds were received in excess of the duty liability was held not to be a legal ground to sustain the demand.

Conclusion: Duty and penalty were not payable, and the assessee was entitled to remission.

---