Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + HC Customs - 2018 (10) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (10) TMI 1334 - HC - CustomsAbatement of duty u/s 22 of CA - warehoused goods was inundated with flood water resulting in loss to the goods stored therein - rejection of abatement on the ground that the damaged caused to the bonded goods was due to floods caused by rains and therefore cannot be considered as loss on account of the “accident” and therefore, abatement of duty also could not be considered. Held that:- From the facts of the present case, it is clear that the imported goods were damaged after the rain water flooded the petitioner’s warehouse - The surveyors report indicates that the goods had residual and salvage value at that time. Had the 1st respondent allowed the petitioner to clear the damaged goods then and there, duty on the abated value in terms of section 22 of the Customs Act, 1962 would have been sustainable - Request for clearance of the goods was also turned down by the 1st respondent on the ground that the request for waiver of interest was under active consideration by the 2ndrespondent in terms of the Public Notice - In the process, the goods lost their salvage value and later posed health hazard not only to the occupants of the petitioner’s bonded warehouse but also to the persons in the locality near the bonded warehouse. Under these circumstances, by an order of this court on 01.02.2003 the Court allowed destruction. Thus, the goods were never allowed to be cleared even on their abated value. In absence of home clearance of the imported goods into the Domestic Tariff Area, the clamour to appropriate of amount paid towards duty even on the abated value pales out. Remission of duty u/s 23 of CA - Held that:- Respondents ought to have suo motto taken steps to refund the amount as the petitioner became entitled for remission of duty under Section 23 of the Customs Act, 1962, as no duty was payable. Interest also cannot be demanded under the circumstances - Therefore, the amount of ₹ 35,35,220/- paid on 09.11.2017 by the petitioner, is directed to be refunded together with interest to the petitioner within six weeks from the date of this order subject to the petitioner satisfying that there is no unjust enrichment in terms of Section 27 of the Act. Petition are allowed with consequential relief by way of refund of the amount paid by the petitioner, subject to the petitioner satisfying that there is no unjust enrichment if refund is to be allowed.
|