2002 (6) TMI 311

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....91 the importer did not take any steps to clear the goods until 1997. In that year, it filed an application for abatement of duty in terms of clause (c) to sub-section (1) of Section 22 of the Act on the ground that the goods were damaged having been badly pitted. The Assistant Commissioner rejected this claim. He said that the goods had been stored in the bonded warehouse from 7-5-1991 onwards on which date the bond expired and no extension of the bond period has been granted. If they had been damaged due to accident during that period, the provisions of clause (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 22 of the Act would have been attracted. He attributed the damage to the goods to long storage in open and exposed atmosphere saying that it was no....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....sideration by the Tribunal was evidently in terms of Section 22(1)(a) of the Act which provides for abatement of duty on any imported goods which are if damaged or deteriorated at any time before or during unloading in India. The claim before us cannot fall under this clause or any clause which refers to imported goods other than warehoused goods, which are damaged at any time after unloading or before their examination. 4. The respondent's claim would fall within clause (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 22 which applies to warehoused goods which are damaged at any time before they are cleared for home consumption. That there has been damage to the goods before the clearance for home consumption is true. However, the question is not....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....his amounts to an accident. The counsel for the respondent attempted to rely upon the dictionary meaning of the term "accident", as "An event that is without apparent cause or unexpected; an unfortunate event, esp. one causing injury or damage". We do not find it possible to accept that presence of moisture and chemical elements in the atmosphere causing pitting over a period of eight years either without cause is acceptable. One could hardly say that in a coastal city, the presence of moisture, etc., is unexpected or an accident. Had the appellant not chosen to leave these goods so long in this manner this damage would not have taken place. Apart from the fact that what caused the damage was not an accident, it was caused by the negligence....