COMMR. OF CUS. (IMPORTS) Vs. SRI MAHARAJA INDUSTRIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal by the Revenue is directed against the Final Order No. 1302/2005, dated 22 -3 -2005 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, South Zonal Bench, Chennai [2006 (195) E.L.T. 232 (Tri. - Bang.)]. The respondent, hereinafter referred to as the Importer, filed six Bills of Entry for import of RBD Palmolien Edible Crude and Crude Sunflower Oil edible grade in bulk quantity of 8944.149 M.Ts. and bonded the same. Out of this quantity, the importer had sold on transfer sale basis 1250 M.Ts. and re -exported a quantity of 7642.178 M.Ts. In the course of such transaction, the importer has noticed that a quantity of 51.971 M.Ts. was lost out of the total quantity. As a result of this, the importer submitted a letter to the Assistant Commissioner of Customs (Bonds) on 22 -7 -2012 seeking remission of duty on the lost goods under Section 23 of the Customs Act, 1962. In the said letter, the importer had given certain details as to the basis on which it had claimed remission. Pursuant to such letter, the Assistant Commissioner of Customs, Chennai, by his reply dated 14 -8 -2012, while denying remission of duty, has stated that many transactions, viz. sale, transfer from tank to tank and re -export, have taken place on different dates and therefore, it was difficult for the supervising officers to exactly pin point the exact quantity involved in such transactions and further, it was stated that there was always a possibility of oil remaining in the pipeline during the Preventive officer's inspection which could have been brought to the notice subsequently. Aggrieved by such denial of remission, the importer filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals). The First Appellate Authority rejected the importer's appeal by an order dated 29 -8 -2003. Aggrieved by the same, the importer preferred an appeal before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, South Zonal Bench, Chennai. The CESTAT, by an order dated 22 -9 -2005 allowed the appeal and held that the loss, being 0.58%, has been reasonably explained by the importer and therefore, the importer was eligible for remission. Challenging the said order, the Department has preferred this appeal, which has been admitted by this Court on 22 -6 -2006 on the following substantial question of law:

(2.) WE have heard Mr. K. Ravindranath learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. T. Ramesh learned counsel appearing for the respondent.