9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (11) TMI 157X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s of June and July, 1999, the appellants had imported various electronic items and have filed Bills of Entry for warehousing. They had warehoused goods so imported in the Customs Public Bonded Warehouse of Central Warehousing Corporation, for the period of one year. Admittedly, theft took place at the Central Warehousing Corporation on 14th/15th November, 1999 and the goods warehoused by various importers, including those warehoused by the appellants, were stolen. The goods were stolen from the warehouse much before the bonding period of one year had expired. The Deputy Commissioner of Customs issued four show cause notices in respect of the goods covered by four Bills of Entry and the respective bonds proposing to demand in all customs dut ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... porter under Section 72 of the Customs Act. 4. The ld. Counsel appearing for the appellants, while assailing the action of the Department submitted that duty cannot be demanded under Section 72 of the Customs Act in the facts and circumstances of this case since none of the circumstances mentioned in Section 72 are attracted. He contended that in any case there is no duty liability in respect of the stolen goods since Section 23 of the Customs Act, 1962 provides for remission of duty in respect of imported goods that have been lost or destroyed at any time before clearance for home consumption. It was also argued by him that liability, if any, is on the Public Bonded Warehouse and not on the importer in terms of Section 45 of the Customs A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rt in the case of S.K. Pattnaik v. State of Orissa reported in 2000 (115) E.L.T. 9 wherein it was observed that the fact was that the liquor was rendered unfit for human consumption and destroyed, after its import, which by itself attracted the levy of duty could not wipe out the liability of the appellant for payment of duty on the excisable goods, after their import in the bonded warehouse. She also referred to the decision of the Madras High Court in the case of Bharat Earth Movers Ltd. v. Collector of Customs, Madras reported in 2001 (129) E.L.T. 580 wherein it answered on reference that claim for refund of duty on account of pilferage is not covered by Section 23 of the Customs Act, 1962. 7. I have carefully considered the matter. In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rehouse since the liability continues in terms of bond relying upon the decision in the case of Pashupathi Overseas (supra). In this context, it was pointed out by the Counsel for the appellants that that case referred to by the Revenue, dealt with the refund claim and further more there is a categorical finding by the Supreme Court wherein it was observed that the Assistant Commissioner of Customs was not satisfied that the imported goods had been 'lost or destroyed.' In the instant case, it is an admitted position that the goods have been lost due to theft and accordingly, that ratio of the said decision is not applicable to the facts of this case. 8. It was also pointed out by him that there is a categorical finding by the Calcutta High ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... emoved from a warehouse in contravention of section 71; (b) where any warehoused goods have not been removed from a warehouse at the expiration of the period during which such goods are permitted under section 61 to remain in a warehouse; (c) where any warehoused goods have been taken under section 64 as samples without payment of duty; (d) where any goods in respect of which a bond has been executed under section 59 and which have not been cleared for home consumption or exportation are not duly accounted for to the satisfaction of the proper officer, the proper officer may demand, and the owner of such goods shall forthwith pay, the full am ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
