2004 (3) TMI 507 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
Imported goods quantity discrepancy between invoice and actual warehoused quantity; Interpretation of Circular No. 96/2002-Cus. regarding duty assessment on warehoused quantity; Justification of rejecting refund applications based on invoiced quantity.

Analysis:
The case involved the import of RBD Palmolein Oil through Chennai and Kakinada Ports, transported to Hyderabad and warehoused in a private bonded warehouse. The appellant claimed a refund of customs duty based on the argument that duty should be paid only on the quantity actually warehoused, which was less than the invoiced quantity. The dispute centered around the interpretation of Circular No. 96/2002-Cus. The appellant relied on the circular to support their position, while the respondent contended that the circular was not applicable as it pertained to situations where goods were warehoused in shore tanks at the place of import, unlike the present case where goods were transported a long distance by road.

The Tribunal examined the quantities involved in the case, highlighting significant discrepancies between the invoiced quantity and the quantity actually received and warehoused at Hyderabad. Despite the lack of a clear pattern in the variations between the quantities, the Tribunal noted that the appellant failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for these differences. The appellant's argument that payment to the foreign supplier was based on the invoiced quantity further supported the Tribunal's view that the invoiced quantity was more reliable for customs duty assessment.

Based on the analysis of the facts and the relevant legal provisions, the Tribunal concluded that the lower authorities were justified in rejecting the refund applications. The Tribunal emphasized that customs duty is levied on goods imported at the place of import, not on the quantity received at interior locations. This distinction was reinforced by the interpretation of Para 6 of the Circular, which clarified the basis for duty assessment. Therefore, the Tribunal upheld the lower authorities' decisions and dismissed the appeals, confirming the rejection of the refund applications.