Suhas Chandra Sen, J. - (1.) The case of the petitioner is unfortunate. But on the point of law that has been raised, this writ petition must fail.
(2.) The petitioner imported some goods describing them as Sheet Cuttings and defective Sheets. It appears that there was some uncertainty in the mind of the Customs Officer as to whether the goods were actually defective Sheets or prime quality Sheets. The result of this uncertainty was that the goods were not released. They were examined time and again after being landed. This delay which was caused entirely by the uncertainty on the part of the Customs Officer caused damage to the goods. The damage was caused according to the Appellate Collector of Customs, Calcutta "due to continuous exposure to the weather while lying in the Docks". The Appellate Collector held that the goods were damaged due to lying in the Docks and the appellate could not be dulted for leaving the goods in the Docks for a long time as this happened due to the enquiry conducted by the Department. The Appellate Collector, therefore, on the basis of a survey report allowed the abatement of duty to the extent of 35%.
(3.) The Appellate Tribunal, however, reversed the order of the Appellate Collector and held that since the damage to the goods was not caused by "accident," the petitioner could not claim any abatement. An argument was advanced that the goods had become rusty on account of being exposed to rain. The argument did not find favour with the Tribunal.;