TMI Blog1983 (2) TMI 304X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntal Representative for the respondent, the Tribunal makes the following order : 3. This petition was filed before the Government of India against the Order-in-appeal No. C 3/1287/81 dated 5-5-1981/17-6-1981 of the Appellate Collector of Customs, Madras, passed under section 128 of the Customs Act, 1962 rejecting their appeal against the order No. S 25/7540/80-AP dated 28-1-1981/5-2-1981 of the Assistant Collector of Customs (Refunds), Custom House, Madras. By virtue of sec. 131-B of the Customs Act, 1962, this petition has now been transferred to the Tribunal to be heard as an appeal. 4. The Assistant Collector had rejected the claim for refund of duty on shortages in a package containing dry fit batteries on the ground that the sh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ia and another-Civil- Writ No. 647 of 1968 (1978 T.L.R. 1700 = 1979 E.L.T. 329 (Del). We have studied carefully the facts of that case including the arguments advanced before the Court and the line of reasoning adopted. In that case His Lordship has held that the expression lost or destroyed has been used in the Customs Act in the generic and comprehensive sense and includes within it the case of loss to the party by pilferage. In doing so His Lordship has referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in East and West Steamship Company v. S.K. Ramalingam Chettiar (AIR 1968 SC 1058) construing the provisions of the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act, 1925; and the decision of the Bombay High Court in Martab AH v Union of India (AIR 1954 Born. 29 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... v State of Uttar Pradesh and others (AIR 1957 SC 18),in interpreting the expression tax on circumstances and property the Supreme Court observed : It was rightly pointed out that it is no sound principle of construction to interpret expressions used in one Act with reference to their use in another Act. The meanings of words and expressions used in one Act must take their colour from the context in which they appear. 7. Clause 23 of the Customs Bill was intended to replace sec. 122 of the Sea Customs Act, 1878 which read as follows :- 122. Power to remit duties on warehoused goods lost or destroyed. If any goods in respect of which a bond has been executed under section 92 and which have not been cleared for home consumption ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tend was a situation in relation to warehoused goods to goods cleared for home consumption directly. If this be so, the object of introducing the new clause would appropriately refer only to cases of complete loss or destruction and not deprivation by way of theft or pilferage. This aspect does not seem to have been brought to the notice of the Court in the Sialkot Industrial Corporation case. 9. We have two provisions in the Customs Act, 1952-Sec. 13 and Sec. 23, dealing with deprivation of goods to the importer. Sec. 23 deals with a situation of loss or destruction. Sec. 13 specifically refers to loss by way of pilferage. Sec. 23 is more broadly worded. If the interpretation placed by His Lordship of the Delhi High Court is accepted. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rted goods are not under the importer s control, he should not be required to pay the duty on any goods that may be pilfered before the Customs Officer makes an order for clearance of the goods. Clause 13 was amended accordingly and the present Sec. 13 reads as follows : 13. Duty on pilfered goods. - If any imported goods are pilfered after the unloading thereof and before the proper officer has made an order for clearance for home consumption or deposit in a warehouse, the importer shall not be liable to pay the duty leviable on such goods except where such goods are restored to the importer after pilferage. It will thus be seen that the Government started with the intention of fixing responsibility for payment of duty on the g ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e that every provision of a statute has to be given full effect and wherever possible the court should not place that construction upon a provision which would tend to make it redundant or to overlap another provision or to limit its application in disregard of its general applicability unless, of course, that is the only construction which could be reasonably placed upon it. Further, in the case of D. Sanjeevayya v. Election Tribunal. Andhra Pradesh and others (AIR 1967 SC 1211) the Supreme Court observed that- It is a well-settled rule of construction that the provisions of a statute should be so read as to harmonise with one another and the provisions of one section cannot be used to defeat those of another unless it is impossibl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
