1995 (1) TMI 212 - AT - Customs

Importers bear duty liability under Customs Act Section 59 bond; Tribunal dismisses loss liability, upholds duty payment.

NITUL DATA SYSTEMS PVT. LTD. Versus COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, NEW DELHI

NITUL DATA SYSTEMS PVT. LTD. Versus COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, NEW DELHI - 1995 (78) E.L.T. 170 (Tribunal) Issues:1. Alleged errors of law in the Tribunal's order2. Liability of appellants to pay duty on goods found short3. Custody of goods and duty liability4. Interpretation of Sections 59 and 13 of the Customs Act5. Liability for loss of goods while in custody of customs department6. Applicability of Section 13 for remission of duty7. Reference of questions of law to the High CourtAnalysis:Issue 1: The appellants raised various alleged errors of law in the Tribunal's order, including the finding of fact without evidence regarding the place of loss of goods, misinterpretation of Sections 59 and 13 of the Customs Act, and failure to appreciate the custody and control of goods by the customs department.Issue 2: The Tribunal held that the duty liability falls on importers as per the bond executed under Section 59 of the Customs Act, based on the examination of goods at the first port of importation and the satisfaction of the appellants during examination that there was no deficiency in the quantity of goods.Issue 3: The appellants argued that the goods were always under customs supervision, even during transportation, and therefore, they should not be liable to pay duty on the goods found short. However, the Tribunal found that since the goods were removed after executing a bond under Section 59, the duty liability rested with the appellants.Issue 4: The Tribunal considered the interpretation of Sections 59 and 13 of the Customs Act, emphasizing that duty liability arises under Section 59 when goods are removed after examination and bond execution, rejecting the appellants' plea for remission of duty under Section 13.Issue 5: The Tribunal emphasized that the liability for the loss of goods lies with the person under whose custody and control the goods were at the time they were lost, holding the appellants responsible for duty payment on the lost goods.Issue 6: The appellants contended that they should be eligible for remission of duty under Section 13 of the Customs Act due to the circumstances of the loss of goods, but the Tribunal rejected this argument, stating that duty payment was required based on the facts and evidence presented.Issue 7: The Tribunal referred to various legal precedents to highlight that questions of pure facts arrived at by the Tribunal do not constitute questions of law suitable for reference to the High Court, emphasizing that findings based on the appreciation of evidence do not give rise to questions of law.In conclusion, the Tribunal rejected the Reference Application, stating that the duty liability on the goods found short was based on factual findings and evidence, and no question of law arose from the Tribunal's order.