https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=81813 The Tribunal granted condonation for a delay in filing the Reference Application. The Appellants' claim for rebate on damaged cargo under Section 22 was rejected, emphasizing the necessity of Customs supervision during unloading. The Tribunal differentiated between Sections 22 and 23, highlighting the importer's burden to prove damage before clearance for abatement of duty. Customs Authorities' involvement was deemed essential for evaluating damage and applying duty abatement under Section 22. The Tribunal upheld the statutory distinction between abatement of duty on damaged goods under Section 22 and remission of duty on lost or destroyed goods under Section 23, ultimately rejecting the Reference Application. en-us Thu, 06 Feb 1992 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 29 Jun 2011 10:44:26 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=81813 The Tribunal granted condonation for a delay in filing the Reference Application. The Appellants' claim for rebate on damaged cargo under Section 22 was rejected, emphasizing the necessity of Customs supervision during unloading. The Tribunal differentiated between Sections 22 and 23, highlighting the importer's burden to prove damage before clearance for abatement of duty. Customs Authorities' involvement was deemed essential for evaluating damage and applying duty abatement under Section 22. The Tribunal upheld the statutory distinction between abatement of duty on damaged goods under Section 22 and remission of duty on lost or destroyed goods under Section 23, ultimately rejecting the Reference Application. Case-Laws Customs Thu, 06 Feb 1992 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=81813