9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (7) TMI 966X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... A No. 226/2011/cus/Commr(A)/KDL, dt.15.09.2011 passed by Commissioner (Appeals) Kandla at Ahmedabad. 2. Shri Hardik Modh (Advocate) appearing on behalf of the appellant argued that first appellate authority under Order dt.15.09.2011 has remanded the case back to the adjudicating authority in view of his observations in Para 8.2, 8.3 & 8.4 of the OIA dt.15.09.2011 It was his case that first appell ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellant there was a deterioration/damage to the cargo and no abatement is admissible due to the appellant under Section 22 (1) (c) of the Customs Act, 1962. 4. Heard both sides and perused the case records. The issue involved in the present proceedings is whether abatement in value under Section 22 (1) (c) of Customs Act, 1962 is admissible to the appellant or not. The provisions contained in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ge has not occurred in the accident due to any willful act, negligence of default of the owner or his employee or agent. Delay in clearances of cargo cannot be held against the appellant as a willful act to invite damages when the custodian and the Customs also have the powers to auction the cargo if not cleared within the warehousing period. 5. In view of the above observations, the matter is re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
