Judgment : 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. 4. It has to be noted that the finding of the Appellate Collector was that the goods were lying exposed and the damage was due to the exposure. There was no definite finding that the damage was due to exposure to rain. The next question is whether rain can be regarded as' "accident". 4. It has to be noted that the finding of the Appellate Collector was that the goods were lying exposed and the damage was due to the exposure. There was no definite finding that the damage was due to exposure to rain. The next question is whether rain can be regarded as' "accident". Section 22 of the Customs Act, which provides for abatement of duty on damaged or deteriorated goods, lays down :- "22(1) Where it is shown to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs- (a) that any imported goods had been damaged or had deteriorated at any time before or during the unloading of the goods in India, or (b) that any imported goods, other than warehoused goods, had been damaged at any time after the unloading thereof in India but before their examination under section 17, on account of any accident not due to any wilful act, negligence or default of the importer his employee or agent, or (c) that any warehoused goods had been damaged at a time before clearance for home consumption on account of any accident not due to any wilful act, negligence or default of the owner, his employee or agent, such goods shall be chargeable to duty in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (2)." 5. The contention on behalf of the Customs is that if any imported goods had been damaged at any time before during unloading of the goods, abatement of duty can be allowed under sub-section (2) of section 22. But in order to claim benefit under section 22(1)(b) or (c) it has to be shown that the damage had been caused by, "accident". It has also to be shown that the "accident" had not been caused by' any wilful act, negligence or default of the importer or the owner as the case may be. 6. In my opinion, the contention of the Customs Authorities has to be accepted in this case. The wording of the section are quite clear and it is difficult to uphold the contention of the writ petitioner, however hard the facts of the case may be. Clause (a) of section 22(1) speaks of damage as well as deterioration. Clauses (b) and (c) speak only of damage but not of deterioration. The "damage" under clauses (b) and (c) must be caused by as "accident". Clause (a) of section 22(1) speaks of damage as well as deterioration. Clauses (b) and (c) speak only of damage but not of deterioration. The "damage" under clauses (b) and (c) must be caused by as "accident". Natural wear and tear will not come within the mischief of clauses (b) and (c). If the goods become rusty due to exposure, the cause cannot be described as 'accidental damage'. The consequences that can be foreseen or anticipate and averted cannot be accidental. It may be that in this case, consequences could not be averted because of the repeated examination of the goods by the Customs Officer; but that will not make the damage accidental. A question was raised whether any damage caused by rain is due to an "accident". Here, the main difficulty is that the Appellate Collector has not found that the damage was caused by rain. Moreover, rain in the facts of this case, cannot be regarded as "accident". The goods were lying in the open in the Docks and was likely to be damaged by rain. In fact, the natural consequences of the goods lying exposed was the damage that might have been caused by rain. Such damage can hardly be described as damage caused by "accident" not due to wilful act negligence or default of the importer. 7. There is one further difficulty in the way of the petitioner. The Tribunal has held that the goods were imported as defective goods and the extent of damage which could be attributed to rains was not capable of being ascertained. The Tribunal has further held that the survey report given without the knowledge and participation of the customs authorities could not be accepted as binding on them. This is a serious impediment in the way of the writ petitioner. These are findings of fact which cannot be disturbed on a writ petition. If the finding was perverse, the Writ Court can certainly intervene. But it cannot be said that this finding is perverse. 8. Moreover, the view taken by the Tribunal is a plausible view. In exercise of writ jurisdiction, it will not be fit and proper to quash the order because it is possible to taken another view of the matter. 9. For the reasons stated hereinabove, this writ petition is dismissed. 10. There will be no order as to costs. 11. 8. Moreover, the view taken by the Tribunal is a plausible view. In exercise of writ jurisdiction, it will not be fit and proper to quash the order because it is possible to taken another view of the matter. 9. For the reasons stated hereinabove, this writ petition is dismissed. 10. There will be no order as to costs. 11. Before parting with the same, mention must be made of one point that was urged which appears to be altogether frivolous. It was urged on behalf of the petitioner that the Tribunal was estopped from holding that the damage and/or deterioration suffered by the goods imported by the petitioner were not caused by "accident". It was contended that this was not the case of the Department at any stage. The Tribunal could not for the first time take up this point. I am entirely unable to accept this contention. The question was whether the petitioner was entitled to get any abatement of duty. The law relating to abatement has been set out in section 22(1) of the Customs Act. I fail to see how the Tribunal is precluded from construing this section and finding out facts for applicability of the section. A judicial or a quasi-judicial Tribunal cannot be restrained from deciding a case in accordance with law. This argument of the petitioner is entirely misconceived and I have no hesitation in rejecting that argument.