Remission of duty for stolen warehoused goods was denied, as "lost" under Customs law excludes theft.

Imported goods stored in a private bonded warehouse that were stolen did not qualify for remission of duty under Section 23 of the Customs Act. The statutory term "lost" was construed as excluding loss by theft, and the reference to pilferage was treated as indicating that theft is outside the remission provision. The reasoning also noted that the goods remained under the control of the warehouse licensee and relied on an earlier interpretation of a pari materia provision. Remission was therefore unavailable and the claim failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether imported goods stored in a private bonded warehouse and lost by theft qualify for remission of duty under Section 23 of the Customs Act.

Analysis: Section 23 permits remission where imported goods are lost otherwise than as a result of pilferage or are destroyed before clearance for home consumption. The expression "lost" was read as excluding loss by theft, and the accompanying reference to pilferage was treated as showing that theft does not fall within the statutory remission provision. The reasoning was reinforced by the view that the warehouse was under the control of the licensee and that the earlier High Court interpretation of a pari materia provision supported exclusion of theft from duty remission.

Conclusion: Remission of duty was not available for loss of the warehoused goods by theft, and the claim was rejected.

---