https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=122507 The court held that the importer was liable for duty on the shortage of goods in a bonded warehouse, despite the goods being in the custody of the warehouse. The court considered the applicability of Customs Act provisions and found in favor of the importer, suggesting that the responsibility for duty payment might lie with the custodian. As a result, the court waived the pre-deposit and granted a stay on recovery pending appeal disposal, emphasizing the importance of custodial accountability and raising questions about duty payment responsibility in similar cases. en-us Wed, 20 Dec 2006 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 14 Aug 2012 12:18:57 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=122507 The court held that the importer was liable for duty on the shortage of goods in a bonded warehouse, despite the goods being in the custody of the warehouse. The court considered the applicability of Customs Act provisions and found in favor of the importer, suggesting that the responsibility for duty payment might lie with the custodian. As a result, the court waived the pre-deposit and granted a stay on recovery pending appeal disposal, emphasizing the importance of custodial accountability and raising questions about duty payment responsibility in similar cases. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 20 Dec 2006 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=122507