HIMALAYA GRANITES LTD. Vs. COMMR. OF CEX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short issue in this stay application appeal as to whether the importer who had warehoused the import goods in the private were house licensed to him by the Department is entitled to claim remission of duty on the ground of theft.

(2.) Both the authorities have taken a view that the appellant had not taken proper care to protect the goods from theft and as the bonded warehouse was in their control, they are not entitled for duty remission. Such being the case, the person, warehousing the goods, was held as responsible for loss and he is liable to pay duty under Section 72(d) Customs Act and hence Section 23 does not cover "theft" and following the ratio of judgment of Hon'ble Madras High Court rendered in the case of Golden Hills Estate v. CCE, Madras the claims were rejected.

(3.) The Ld. Consultant Shri Kumarasamy submits that the circumstances of loss "includes theft, as the imported duty free goods were in the bonded ware house and in the joint control of the appellant and the Customs Department, therefore, the loss of goods by theft is covered by Section 23 of the Customs Act and hence they are entitled for remission. He submits that they have pre -deposited already a sum of Rs. 3 lakhs out of total duty of Rs. 4,34,020. He seeks not only for the waiver of the balance duty amount but also for stay of his recovery pending final decision of the appeal.