Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.28 seconds)Section 13 in The Customs Act, 1962 [Entire Act]
Section 47 in The Customs Act, 1962 [Entire Act]
Section 45 in The Customs Act, 1962 [Entire Act]
Section 49 in The Customs Act, 1962 [Entire Act]
Hindustan Petroleum Corporation ... vs Collector Of Customs on 6 March, 1984
Hence the provisions of
Section 45 when read with section 47, 13 & 23 harmoniously,
make it abundantly clear that the submissions made on behalf of
appellant are not acceptable to the given facts and circumstances,
I do not agree with the decision relied upon by them in
Hindustan Petrochemical (supra).
The Customs Act, 1962
Bharat Electronics Ltd. vs Collector Of Customs on 15 February, 1983
4. While rebutting these submissions learned D.R. has
mentioned that the remission of duty in terms of section 23 of
Customs Act, 1962 is permissible only for the goods lost or
4
C/51646 /2019 [SM]
destroyed but for the pilfered goods the remission is prohibited by
the Legislature. For such goods Section 13 only shall be
applicable. But only in a situation where the goods are noticed to
be pilfered prior the out charge order is issued by the proper
Custom Officer. Since in the present case, the said OOC (out of
charge order) was already issued prior the appellant noticed
pilferation, the adjudicating authorities have rightly rejected the
claim. While laying emphasis upon the decision in the case of
Bharat Electronics Ltd. vs. Collector of Customs reported in
1983 (E.C.R.)
Zenith Bearing Enterprises vs Collector Of Customs (Acc) on 9 February, 1994
12. Coming to the another submission that irrespective of
applicability of Section 13 importer was still not liable as the
goods were still in the possession of the custodian (CONCOR)
even after the order of clearance (OOC) was passed. I am not in
agreement with that submission as I am of the opinion that once
an out of charge order has been given it will clearly indicate that
the customs are no longer interested in keeping the goods and the
importers are at liberty to clear the goods. If the importer
continues to keep the goods in Custom area under the custody of
the custodian, the Legislature has intended that it is at their own
risk and responsibility, in so far as duty liability is concerned in
respect of the pilferage. I draw my support from the decision in
the case of Zenith Bearing Enterprises (supra) as relied upon
by the learned D.R. Since the goods pilfered and stolen has to go
into home consumption, duty has to be paid by the importer.
From both these provisions, it is clearly apparent that Legislature
has thought it fit to consider remission of duty held in the
Customs area only for the period required for completion of
Customs formalities and not beyond that. Appointment of
custodian is mainly for the purpose of getting the customs
12
C/51646 /2019 [SM]
formalities completed. Hence, his responsibilities also continued
only to the stage when out of charge order for clearance either for
home consumption or for depositing in warehouse is passed by
the proper officer. Custodian is not suppose to take the custody
of goods treating the entire custom area as a warehouse. If the
importers still choose to keep the goods in the custom area, it is
possible only at the importers' own risk.
1