https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=81167 The appeal was allowed by the Tribunal, directing the Assistant Collector to re-examine the claim for refund of duty amount due to shortage in the imported consignment. The Tribunal found that the evidence provided by the appellants, including a police complaint and recovered stolen items, substantiated the claim of pilferage post-landing but before clearance. Despite not informing Customs authorities before clearance, the Tribunal held that strong evidence can justify the claim, and the failure to follow Sec. 13 of the Customs Act was not sufficient to reject the claim. The authorities were directed to grant the appropriate refund amount. en-us Wed, 11 Jul 1990 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 22 Jun 2011 18:12:54 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=81167 The appeal was allowed by the Tribunal, directing the Assistant Collector to re-examine the claim for refund of duty amount due to shortage in the imported consignment. The Tribunal found that the evidence provided by the appellants, including a police complaint and recovered stolen items, substantiated the claim of pilferage post-landing but before clearance. Despite not informing Customs authorities before clearance, the Tribunal held that strong evidence can justify the claim, and the failure to follow Sec. 13 of the Customs Act was not sufficient to reject the claim. The authorities were directed to grant the appropriate refund amount. Case-Laws Customs Wed, 11 Jul 1990 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=81167