2006 (3) TMI 622 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Admissibility of refund claim for differential quantity of imported goods.
2. Jurisdiction of the Appellate Tribunal under Section 129A of the Customs Act.

Issue 1: Admissibility of refund claim for differential quantity of imported goods:
The case involved the import of "Propene (Propylene) Polymer grade" through Cuddalore Port. The importers sought clearance for 1408.655 MTs of 'Propene' but only 1359.830 MTs were dispatched under Customs supervision, leaving a differential quantity of 48.825 MTs. The importers filed refund claims for the differential quantity, which were rejected by the original authority citing that the loss occurred after clearance for home consumption. The Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) allowed the appeals of the importers, leading to the department appealing against these decisions.

Issue 2: Jurisdiction of the Appellate Tribunal under Section 129A of the Customs Act:
The Appellate Tribunal considered whether the appeals by the department were maintainable under Section 129A of the Customs Act. The respondents argued that the appeals were barred by the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 129A, as it related to goods loaded for importation but short-landed at the destination. The department claimed that the case was about short-receipt after clearance, not short-landing. The Tribunal analyzed the quantities at various stages of importation and clearance to determine if there was short-landing. It was found that there was a shortage of 48.825 MTs, leading to the conclusion that the appeals were not maintainable under the proviso of Section 129A. The appropriate remedy was deemed to be a revision of the appellate Commissioner's order under Section 129DD, not an appeal to the Tribunal.

In conclusion, the Appellate Tribunal dismissed the appeals by the department as not maintainable due to the short-landing of goods, which fell under the proviso of Section 129A of the Customs Act. The Tribunal clarified the appropriate remedy for the department and highlighted the misconception by the revisional authority. The judgment emphasized the legal provisions governing the admissibility of refund claims for imported goods and the jurisdiction of the Appellate Tribunal in such cases.