UNITRON LIMITED Vs. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two appeals are against the order of the Collector of Customs (Appeals), New Delhi, confirming the rejection of the refund claim of the appellant.

(2.) THERE was no one for the appellant nor a request for adjournment. Therefore, after hearing Shri K.K. Datta, JDR, the appeals are being decided on the basis of the submissions in the memorandum of appeal.

(3.) THE appellant has filed a claim for refund of customs duty paid on two consignments of Integrated circuits and transistors on the ground that the package which was supposed to contain these goods was empty. The Assistant Collector has rejected the claim on the ground that the carrier had not taken responsibility for the loss. In appeal the Collector (Appeals) held that Section 23 of the Customs Act, 1962 would not apply, because there is no evidence to show that the loss was "final". He says that it cannot be said that the goods have been lost, because there is no customs examination report or a survey report. I am not able to understand this finding. It is clear from the Collector's order that when the packages were called for examination by the customs, they were found empty. The only ground under which refund under Section 23 cannot be claimed is if the loss took place due to pilferage. In that case, however, the goods would be entitled to refund in terms of Section 13. It is clear from the letter dated 6 -2 -1990 of the International Airports Authority of India that the consignment was received by the IAAI in "damaged/empty condition" from the carrier. The IAAI has advised the appellant to take up the matter with the carrier.