Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2019 (2) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (2) TMI 1123 - AT - CustomsSTPI unit - Remission of duty - Damage of warehoused goods - remission claimed denied for the reason that the goods have were cleared under N/N. 52/2003-Cus dated 31,03.2005 by filling a bill of Entry and were in use for period of 3 years and insurance claim has been settled so claim of remission is not acceptable. They should pay the duty on depreciated value - case of Revenue is that in the present case though appellants had claimed remission in terms of Section 23 of the Custom Act, 1962, lower Authorities, Deputy Commissioner has allowed abetment from duty under 22(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 - abatement u/s 22 is allowed to appellant. Held that:- Both sections 58 and 65 stipulate that person depositing the goods in terms of the above section in private bonded warehouse or undertaking operations as specified by the said section, is bound by the conditions specified in the said licenses and also by the Bond executed under Section 59. One of the conditions prescribed by the license is that the appellants shall insure the goods deposited in the warehouse against pilferage, theft, fire accident and other natural calamities - Thus by not executing the bond as required as condition for warehousing license, appellants have violated the conditions of license issued under Section 58. Insurance policy - though the fire incident happened in the premises of Appellant on 08.05.2006, the Insurance Policy has been issued to them on 09.05.2006 effective from 01.05.2006 - Held that:- Even this insurance policy is in the name of Appellants and not in the name of Commissioner Customs as per the condition of license. If such an insurance policy as required in terms of conditions of license was executed by the Appellant, then there would have been no requirement of any remission. Section 23 of the Customs Act, 1962 is a general provision seeking to provide a generalized remedy of remission in case of loss of goods. However section 58 and 65 are specific provisions in relation to the private bonded warehouse etc. By prescribing the condition of insurance coverage to the extent of Custom Duty deferred in respect of the warehoused goods, the Appellants have been insulated from the losses that may occur on this account. However by choosing not to do so Appellants have to be themselves held responsible for any loss that may occur on this account. It is settled position in law, that when a some manner is prescribed in law for performing a function in then that needs to be done in that manner only or not all. Thus appellants should have insured the goods to the extent of duty deferred in respect of the imported goods destroyed in fire. In terms of B-17 bonds executed by the Appellants, they have bond themselves in respect of the imported/ warehoused goods. The entire gamut of case law has evolved on the premise of remission under Section 23 without taking into consideration the provision of Section 22, which allow the abetment of value and duty to the extent of damage suffered. From the reading of both the sections, it is evident that in case of complete loss of goods before clearance of the goods for home consumption remission of duty under Section 23 needs to be considered, however in case of damage to the goods, the duty is abetted by the difference in value of the goods as imported and the damaged value. In case where the lower authorities have themselves allowed the abetment under Section 22(2) there can be no grievance. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.
|