1992 (2) TMI 220 - AT - Customs

Court remands case for further inquiries on alleged pilferage before clearance, emphasizing proper investigations and legal procedures.

The appeal was allowed by the court, remanding the case to the Assistant Collector for further inquiries with the Port Trust Authorities to investigate ... Refund of duty on pilfered goods Issues:Appeal against rejection of refund claim by Customs Authorities based on alleged pilferage of goods before clearance for home-consumption. Interpretation of Section 13 of the Customs Act, 1962. Requirement of conducting survey in the presence of Customs Authorities. Consideration of evidence and endorsements on bill of entry by Customs Authorities. Applicability of previous legal precedents in similar cases.Analysis:The appeal was filed against the rejection of a refund claim by the Customs Authorities concerning alleged pilferage of goods before clearance for home-consumption. The appellants argued that a package was found damaged before delivery, with a Quick Disconnect Socket missing, and requested an endorsement on the bill of entry, which was not done. They contended that the claim fell within the scope of Section 13 of the Customs Act, 1962, which exempts importers from duty payment if goods are pilfered before clearance. The Customs Authorities, represented by the respondent Collector, argued that the appellants failed to prove the timing of the shortage and that surveys not conducted in their presence are not binding. They highlighted the absence of evidence, endorsements, or records to support the appellants' claims.The appellants emphasized that the goods arrived in good condition, but the package was found damaged during clearance, leading to a survey conducted while the goods were in the custody of the Calcutta Port Trust. The respondent Collector contended that Section 13 was not applicable to the case based on the facts presented. The judge considered both parties' submissions and referred to a previous legal decision that emphasized the responsibility of the Port Trust in the custody and removal of imported goods. The decision highlighted the need for inquiries with Port Trust and Police Authorities to verify claims of pilferage before deciding on refund claims.In light of the legal precedent cited, the judge allowed the appeal by remanding the case to the Assistant Collector. The Assistant Collector was directed to conduct necessary inquiries with the Port Trust Authorities to gather facts regarding the alleged pilferage. The judge emphasized the importance of verifying the claims through proper investigations before making a decision on the refund claim. The judgment underscored the significance of following legal procedures and conducting thorough investigations in cases involving alleged pilferage of goods before clearance for home-consumption.