Abatement of customs duty depends on proof that damage occurred before clearance; unsupported survey evidence was insufficient.

Abatement of customs duty under Section 22 required the importer to prove that the imported goods were damaged while in transit or in customs storage before clearance. The survey report did not provide a reliable factual basis for fixing the time or cause of damage, and it did not exclude the possibility that the damage occurred after clearance at the importer's premises. As the burden of proof remained on the claimant and was not discharged, the abatement claim was rightly rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether the importer was entitled to abatement of customs duty under Section 22 on the ground that the imported goods were damaged before clearance.

Analysis: The claim for abatement required the importer to establish that the statutory ingredients were satisfied. The survey report did not furnish a reliable factual basis for concluding that the damage occurred during transit or while the goods were in customs storage. The possibility that the damage occurred after clearance while the goods remained in the importer's premises could not be excluded, and the report also did not adequately support the cause of damage attributed to corrosive material. As the onus lay on the claimant and was not discharged, interference with the rejection of the claim was unwarranted.

Conclusion: The claim for abatement under Section 22 was not proved and was rightly rejected.

---