https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=82906 The appeal was rejected as the judges determined that the appellants' claim for refund on duty paid for damaged goods did not align with the criteria set out in Sections 22 and 23 of the Customs Act. The court emphasized the distinction between "damage" and "deterioration," stating that Section 22 covers both, while Section 23 applies to loss or destruction. The judges highlighted the mandatory requirements under Section 22 for redetermining duty on damaged goods, concluding that the claim based on goods deteriorating before clearance did not meet these criteria and, therefore, the appeal was dismissed. en-us Wed, 20 May 1992 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 08 Jul 2011 11:17:44 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=82906 The appeal was rejected as the judges determined that the appellants' claim for refund on duty paid for damaged goods did not align with the criteria set out in Sections 22 and 23 of the Customs Act. The court emphasized the distinction between "damage" and "deterioration," stating that Section 22 covers both, while Section 23 applies to loss or destruction. The judges highlighted the mandatory requirements under Section 22 for redetermining duty on damaged goods, concluding that the claim based on goods deteriorating before clearance did not meet these criteria and, therefore, the appeal was dismissed. Case-Laws Customs Wed, 20 May 1992 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=82906