Marketable goods remain dutiable despite pending testing, and theft alone does not justify remission of duty.

Goods that are complete in all material respects and capable of being cleared and sold are treated as marketable and therefore dutiable, even if testing remains pending. Non-entry in the RG 1 register does not by itself make the goods non-manufactured or non-marketable, and the assessee must prove otherwise. Remission of duty was also denied because theft alone was not accepted as sufficient ground on the facts found. The duty demand was upheld against the assessee.

---

---

Issues: Whether duty was payable on stolen goods which had been manufactured and were marketable though testing remained to be completed, and whether remission of duty was available for such theft.

Analysis: The goods were found to be complete in all material respects except for testing, with serial numbers allotted and capable of being cleared and sold in the market. Non-entry in the RG 1 register did not make the goods non-manufactured or non-marketable. The obligation to establish non-marketable character was not discharged by the assessee. The request for remission also failed, as theft by itself was not treated as sufficient cause for remission on the facts found.

Conclusion: Duty was payable on the stolen goods and remission was not available; the demand was upheld against the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: Goods that are complete and marketable are dutiable notwithstanding that testing is pending, and theft does not by itself extinguish duty liability or justify remission absent a legally sufficient basis.

---