Writ Petition Granted: Customs Act Interpretation Expanded to Include Pilferage

The court allowed the writ petition, setting aside the Central Government's orders. The petitioner's claim for refund of duty on pilfered goods was to be reconsidered under Section 23 of the Customs Act, 1962, broadening the interpretation to include pilferage as a form of loss. Each party was to bear its own costs.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of Section 13 of the Customs Act, 1962.
2. Applicability of Section 23 of the Customs Act, 1962.

Summary:

1. Applicability of Section 13 of the Customs Act, 1962:
The petitioner filed a bill of lading for three cases of stainless steel sheets, which were assessed to duty. After the duty was paid and an order for home consumption was passed on 29th June 1965, one of the consignments was found pilfered on 8th July 1965. The petitioner claimed a refund of the duty paid on the pilfered consignment. The Assistant Collector of Customs rejected the claim, stating that remission of duty u/s 13 of the Customs Act, 1962 was admissible only if the claim was made in writing before the out-of-charge order was given. Since no such claim was made before the order, the refund could not be entertained. The Appellate Collector of Customs upheld this decision, noting that the pilferage occurred after the clearance order, making the claim inadmissible u/s 13.

2. Applicability of Section 23 of the Customs Act, 1962:
The petitioner argued in revision that the refund was permissible u/s 23 of the Act. The Government rejected this claim, stating that Section 23(1) was not applicable. The court analyzed Section 23, which provides for remission of duty if goods are lost or destroyed before actual clearance for home consumption. The court found that the term "lost" includes deprivation due to theft, and thus, the expression "lost or destroyed" in Section 23 should be interpreted broadly to include pilferage. The court concluded that the petitioner's claim should be considered under Section 23, rejecting the respondents' narrow interpretation that excluded pilferage from the ambit of "lost or destroyed."

Conclusion:
The writ petition was allowed, and the impugned orders of the Central Government were set aside. The respondents were directed to reconsider the petitioner's claim in light of the court's interpretation of the relevant provisions. The parties were left to bear their own costs.

---