https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166064 Pilferage causing shortage before clearance for home consumption was treated as governed by Section 13 of the Customs Act, 1962, not Section 23(1), so the refund claim failed. The Tribunal held that where imported goods are not available at the time of clearance because of pilferage, Section 13 alone applies to the customs duty question. It also held that Customs authorities must respect High Court decisions, but a single High Court ruling is not invariably binding on all Tribunal Benches where the context differs or conflicting views exist. Reliance on the cited Delhi High Court decision was therefore rejected. en-us Thu, 10 Mar 1983 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 23 Aug 2014 18:37:43 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166064 Pilferage causing shortage before clearance for home consumption was treated as governed by Section 13 of the Customs Act, 1962, not Section 23(1), so the refund claim failed. The Tribunal held that where imported goods are not available at the time of clearance because of pilferage, Section 13 alone applies to the customs duty question. It also held that Customs authorities must respect High Court decisions, but a single High Court ruling is not invariably binding on all Tribunal Benches where the context differs or conflicting views exist. Reliance on the cited Delhi High Court decision was therefore rejected. Case-Laws Customs Thu, 10 Mar 1983 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=166064