Ram Decorative and Indl. Vs. Commr. of Cus.

Ram Decorative and Indl. vs Commr. of Cus.

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided Dec 11, 1996

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/10489

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/10489
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided On: Dec 11, 1996
Subject: Customs

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Customs

Key legal issue: Customs

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Ram Decorative and Indl.

Respondent

Commr. of Cus.

Legal References

Reported In: (1998)(104)ELT703Tri(Mum.)bai

Excerpt

.....their landing and storage in the docks. he points out that, as a result of dispute with the customs regarding appropriate duty, clearance was delayed for a few months. in either case, he contends, the case would be covered by the provision of section 22 of the act.3. the survey report does not indicate any basis for the conclusion that the damage took place during the storage of the goods in the container in which they were transported, or during their storage in the bombay docks. the goods are seen to have been carried in lcl containers i.e. they occupied only a part of a container which might have container other goods. hence the distinction made in the survey report between storage in a container and storage in the docks with regard to its damage requires a basis in fact, which is not shown to exist. the goods were lying in the premises of the appellant for about a month after clearance from the customs and before the survey was carried out. the possibility that the damage occurred during this can also not be excluded. the survey report does not indicate the basis for the conclusion that damage was caused by corrosive material. the section 22 lays the onus for establishing the claim for abatement on the person making the claim. it is he who must satisfy the assistant collector that the ingredients of the section have been met. this has not been done. i, there, am unable to interfere with the finding in the order impugned in the appeal.

Full Judgment

1. The appellants imported a consignment of stainless steel moulds and cleared them from Customs on payment of duty. Subsequent to their clearance some damage was noticed to these moulds. A survey carried out showed damage in the form of pitting spots marks and line the moulds.

The surveyor tendered the opinion that this damage would have been resulted eutger (sic) due to the consignments being stored in a container with some corrosive material, or by its coming into contact with corrosive material during the storage in the docks. Acting on this report, appellant claimed abatement of duty under Section 22 of the Act. The Assistant Collector (whose order has been confirmed by the Collector (Appeals) rejected this claim. Hence this appeal.

2. The Advocate for the appellant contends that in view of the opinion of the surveyor damage would have taken place either during the transit of the goods, or after their landing and storage in the docks. He points out that, as a result of dispute with the customs regarding appropriate duty, clearance was delayed for a few months. In either case, he contends, the case would be covered by the provision of Section 22 of the Act.

3. The survey report does not indicate any basis for the conclusion that the damage took place during the storage of the goods in the container in which they were transported, or during their storage in the Bombay docks. The goods are seen to have been carried in LCL containers i.e. they occupied only a part of a container which might have container other goods. Hence the distinction made in the survey report between storage in a container and storage in the docks with regard to its damage requires a basis in fact, which is not shown to exist. The goods were lying in the premises of the appellant for about a month after clearance from the Customs and before the survey was carried out. The possibility that the damage occurred during this can also not be excluded. The survey report does not indicate the basis for the conclusion that damage was caused by corrosive material. The Section 22 lays the onus for establishing the claim for abatement on the person making the claim. It is he who must satisfy the Assistant Collector that the ingredients of the section have been met. This has not been done. I, there, am unable to interfere with the finding in the order impugned in the appeal.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumb... Same Parties Ram Decorative and Indl. vs Commr. of Cus. Same Subject Customs