https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84704 The appeal was rejected by the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi, as it found that the refund claim for duty paid on damaged Copper rods did not comply with the provisions of abatement of duty on damaged goods under Section 22(2) of the Customs Act, 1962. The Tribunal noted that the damage was not reported to the Customs Officer at the Port during clearance, and the survey report provided for insurance purposes was not submitted at the time of clearance. Despite arguments made by the Consultant, the Tribunal upheld the decision of the Collector of Customs (Appeals) and dismissed the appeal. en-us Tue, 28 Nov 1995 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 25 Jul 2011 11:14:26 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84704 The appeal was rejected by the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi, as it found that the refund claim for duty paid on damaged Copper rods did not comply with the provisions of abatement of duty on damaged goods under Section 22(2) of the Customs Act, 1962. The Tribunal noted that the damage was not reported to the Customs Officer at the Port during clearance, and the survey report provided for insurance purposes was not submitted at the time of clearance. Despite arguments made by the Consultant, the Tribunal upheld the decision of the Collector of Customs (Appeals) and dismissed the appeal. Case-Laws Customs Tue, 28 Nov 1995 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84704