Specific customs provision for pilferage prevails over general remission of duty for lost or destroyed goods.

Pilferage of imported goods after unloading and before clearance for home consumption is governed specifically by Section 13 of the Customs Act, 1962, which relieves the importer from duty in such cases. Section 23(1), which deals with remission for goods lost, destroyed or abandoned before clearance, operates in a different field and does not extend to pilferage. A later amendment inserting the words "without prejudice to the provisions of Section 13" was treated as clarificatory of this existing position, reinforcing that the specific pilferage provision prevails over the general remission provision.

---

---

Issues: Whether a claim for refund or remission of customs duty on account of pilferage of imported goods before clearance for home consumption is covered by Section 23(1) of the Customs Act, 1962, or falls exclusively within Section 13 of the Act.

Analysis: Section 13 specifically deals with pilferage occurring after unloading and before an order for clearance for home consumption or deposit in a warehouse, and relieves the importer from liability to pay duty in such cases. Section 23(1), by contrast, governs remission of duty on goods that are lost, destroyed or abandoned before clearance for home consumption. The two provisions operate in different fields, and the specific provision dealing with pilferage cannot be absorbed into the wider language of Section 23(1). A later amendment introducing the words "without prejudice to the provisions of Section 13" and excluding loss otherwise than as a result of pilferage was treated as clarificatory of the existing position.

Conclusion: A claim for refund of duty on account of pilferage is not covered by Section 23(1) of the Customs Act, 1962, and is governed by Section 13 instead.

Final Conclusion: The reference was answered against the assessee and in favour of Revenue by holding that pilferage cases do not fall within Section 23(1).

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statute contains a specific provision dealing with a particular contingency, that specific provision governs the matter and a general remission provision cannot be construed to cover the same contingency.

---