TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1988 (10) TMI 202
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....re bonded at Bombay. On arrival, the importers sought for immediate transfer in bond to Delhi. When the consignment arrived in containers and destuffed in Bombay Docks, some of them were found in rusty condition and some of the drums were leaking. Hence the appellants applied for survey which was conducted on 27-2-1982 and 1/9-3-1982. The survey was conducted in the presence of Customs as per the survey report. Though the drums appeared intact, they were found partly rusted, 13 drums of TDI found leaking and 2 drums of Polyether Polyol empty and 8 leaking. On survey it was ascertained that the total shortage was TDI 216 kgs and Polyether Polyol was found short by 590 kgs. However, notwithstanding the survey showing certain damages to the co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the judgment in the case of Sialkot Industrial Corporation of Meerut v. Union of India reported in E.L.T. 1979 (J-329), they are entitled to claim remission even in respect of warehoused goods under Section 23 of the Customs Act. The Collector of Customs (Appeals) on the other hand, has held that the word used in the Section 23 is 'remit' which would mean 'to send' or 'put back'. Thus it would mean return of the duty. Section 23 provides only for return of duty already paid on goods lost or destroyed. In this case no duty had been paid. Section 13 only provides for warehoused goods and home consumption goods wherein the words used are "should not be leviable to pay duty". Shri Banerjee, the learned Advocate for the appellants attacked the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... repair the drums before transporting the same especially when there is a notice of damages, is not justifiable since the goods were never out of charge of the Customs department and the importers had no authority to tamper with the goods before they were sent in transit and rewarehoused at Delhi. In such a situation, it could not be said that the loss occurred during the transit is on account of the importers. 4. The learned Sr. Departmental Representative, Shri Mondal on the other hand supported the order of the Collector of Customs (Appeals) and argued that this was a case of transfer of goods squarely covered under Section 67 of the Customs Act, from one warehouse to another situated in two different towns. In this case the importers....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e goods were loaded and it was his argument that the goods would have been put in sound containers and that is why the transporter has subsequently undertaken to transport the goods. Thus, it was argued that due care has been taken by the appellants. We are unable to appreciate the stand of the appellants on this point. The goods on arrival have been entered for warehousing. It is only the appellant who sought for waiver of physical warehousing of the goods. When they have noticed certain damages and also found the containers not in good condition they could have warehoused the goods in Bombay itself and sought for permission to deal with the goods and containers in such a manner as may be necessary to prevent further loss or deterioration ....