TMI Blog2008 (8) TMI 323X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... orted. As the loss does not relate to loss of ‘goods’, the provisions of Section 23 are not attracted and the appellant was not entitled to remission of duty. – Remission is not granted – refund application rejected. - C/222/2006 - C/341/2008-(PB), - Dated:- 6-8-2008 - Justice S.N. Jha, President and Shri M. Veeraiyan, Member (T) Shri H.S. Mew, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri Fateh Singh, DR, for the Respondent. [Order per : M. Veeraiyan, Member (T)]. - This is an appeal against the order of the appellate Commissioner No. 62/ GRM/GGN/2006 dated 21-2-2006 by which the order of the original authority rejecting the refund claim has been upheld by him. 2. Heard both sides. 3. The relevant facts, in brief, are as follow ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ents were cleared on payment of duty on the quantity of 200 MT as per the manifest and for which the bill of entry was filed. 4. The appellant thereafter contended that the customs authorities have delivered only 188.236 MTs and therefore there was loss which was for reasons other than pilferage and therefore they were eligible for remission under Section 23 of the Customs Act and accordingly claimed refund of Rs.11,04,843/- on total quantity of 11.746 MT stated to be short delivered to the importer. The claim was rejected by the original authority and the order of rejection was upheld by the first appellate authority. 5.1 Learned Advocate appearing for the appellant submits that they imported 200 MTs of cloves; filed bill of entry ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... et weight as seen from the record. The examination report of the examining officers, in our opinion, merely indicate that the goods were cloves as per invoice, the weight declared in the invoice/bill of lading tallied with the weight as per the recording on the bags. Further, the clearance of consignment was delayed as the report of Central Food Laboratory held that the goods were adulterated and therefore not permissible to be cleared from the customs area to the market and causing health hazardous to the people. However, efforts have been made and extraneous matter appears to have been segregated and after segregation a quantity of only 190.405 MT was found to be of good quality in October 2004. Even after this, there was delay in clearan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... p reading' is in vogue in international trade. The present case does not involve determining the quantity by any such method. 9. The decision of the single Member Bench in the case of Sonal Vyapar Ltd. (supra) is also not applicable to the present facts of the case. In the said case it appears that subject goods were cleared from the port area and they were being subject to weighment and it was treated as a case of short receipt or delivery of goods. Whether the short receipt was due to short landing of the goods or oth erwise is not clear from the facts described therein. Therefore, we hold that the said case cannot be treated as akin to the facts of the present case. 10. Section 23 of the Customs Act envisages remission of duty on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
