1991 (10) TMI 144 - AT - Customs

Tribunal grants duty remission on lost goods, interpreting Customs Act broadly.

PRAKASH PIPES & INDUSTRIES LTD. Versus COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

The Tribunal allowed the appeal against the rejection of the claim for refund of duty under Section 23 of the Customs Act, 1962. The Tribunal interpreted ... Remission of duty on lost goods Issues:1. Appeal against rejection of claim for refund of duty under Section 23 of the Customs Act, 1962.2. Interpretation of the term 'lost or destroyed' under Section 23.3. Applicability of time limit under Section 27 for remission of duty under Section 23.4. Consideration of case law in determining remission of duty for lost goods.Analysis:1. The appeal was lodged against the Collector of Customs (Appeals) rejecting the claim for refund of duty under Section 23 of the Customs Act, 1962, on the basis that it was not established that the goods in question had been lost. The appellants contended that despite efforts by the International Airport Authority, the goods were untraceable, as confirmed in a letter dated 20/21 December, 1990. The appellants argued that the claim was for remission of duty under Section 23, not refund under Section 27, as the time limit under Section 27 would not apply.2. The appellants asserted that the term 'lost or destroyed' in Section 23 should be interpreted broadly, as held in the case of Sialkot Industrial Corporation v. Union of India. They also referred to the decision in B.R.T. Ltd. v. Collr. of Customs, which supported the expansive interpretation of the term. The Tribunal acknowledged that the goods were not available in the cargo terminal, and the police had closed the investigation, leading to a conclusion that the goods were lost before clearance for home consumption, falling within the ambit of Section 23.3. The appellants argued that the time limit prescribed under Section 27 for refund claims did not apply to their remission claim under Section 23. The Tribunal agreed, emphasizing that the final Non-Delivery Certificate confirmed the unavailability of the goods, making it a clear case for remission under Section 23. The Tribunal rejected the notion of temporary loss, as there was no subsequent discovery of the goods, aligning with the case law cited by the appellants.4. The Tribunal considered the submissions of both parties and reviewed the case records. They found that the goods were indeed lost before clearance, warranting remission of duty under Section 23. The Tribunal disagreed with the lower authorities' interpretation and allowed the appeal, providing consequential relief to the appellants. The decision was supported by the conclusive evidence of the goods' unavailability and the closure of the police investigation, in line with the legal principles discussed during the proceedings.