Customs duty on alleged shortage cannot be demanded without proof of pilferage or transit loss before home consumption clearance.

Duty on an alleged shortage of imported goods was not sustainable where the quantities recorded at the port and at the importer's premises showed no transit loss, and the received quantity was higher than the quantity despatched. The discrepancy arose between the survey report and import documents on one side and the quantity actually despatched from the port on the other, but there was no evidence of pilferage or loss in transit. On those facts, the matter fell within the remission rule for goods lost or destroyed before clearance for home consumption, so duty could not be demanded merely because of an apparent shortage.

---

---

Issues: Whether duty was demandable on the alleged shortage of imported goods, and whether remission of duty was admissible under the Customs Act.

Analysis: The quantity recorded at the port and at the importer's premises showed no transit loss, as the quantity received was higher than the quantity despatched. The discrepancy arose between the survey report and the import documents on one hand, and the quantity actually despatched from the port on the other. In the absence of evidence of pilferage or loss in transit, the case fell within the scope of remission for goods lost or destroyed before clearance for home consumption.

Conclusion: The duty demand was not justified and the importer was entitled to relief.

Ratio Decidendi: Where imported goods are not shown to have been lost or destroyed before clearance for home consumption, and the material facts do not establish pilferage or transit loss, duty cannot be demanded merely on the basis of an apparent shortage.

---