Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

24. Provisions of Section 23 indicate that the benefit of remission of duty is available till the clearance, if the goods are lost or destroyed, and as per the judicial pronouncement referred to above (Re: Sialkot Industries Corpn.) the said benefit was also available, for pilferred goods, till the Section came to be amended. The precise purpose of the amendment in Section 23 being not available, as neither there is any mention in the Finance Act, 1983 nor anything in relation thereto, is found from the speech of the Finance Minister, two exigencies, under the circumstances, could be envisaged, (1) such benefit was intended to be withdrawn for pilferage after the order of clearance but before the actual clearance, or (2) Section 13 took care of the cases of pilferage and hence duplication was to be removed. There does not appear to be any rational and probable intention to isolate the cases of pilferage, and discriminate against, vis-a-vis, loss or destruction on other counts. When ex facie Section 13 provides for non charging of duty on the goods pilferred before the order for home consumption is passed, it cannot be held that the legislature did not intend to give any benefit in cases of pilferage, and in that case, it does not stand to any reason that the importer ought to have examined the consignment before paying the duty, as the act of payment of duty and passing of the order for clearance may not always synchronize (as has happened in this appeal itself, where the duty is paid on 29-3-1989, and order for clearance is given on 31-1-1989) and entitlement of non payment of duty extends to pilferage till the issue of order for clearance. There could also be no rational in assuming that, the importer ought to be vigilent and get the consignment released forthwith, and pilferage being after the issue of order, was on account of negligence, in not seeking clearance forthwith, the importer should suffer, as the same reasoning could also stand attracted, for loss or destruction, under Section 23, as loss or destruction could be avoided if clearance was done immediately after obtaining order for clearance, but even then the benefit thereunder is made available till the goods are cleared. It also cannot be inferred that the loss or destruction contemplated under Section 23 ought to be such which were beyond the control, as these two exigencies contemplated are not circumscribed by such qualifying clauses and would include loss or destruction on account of even avoidable human error.