9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Assessment of duty on an imported consignment. 2. Discrepancy in the received goods compared to the Bill of Entry. 3. Claim for refund of excess duty paid. Analysis: 1. The appellants had a Foods Business Division in Bangalore and imported a Food Making Machine from the UK. The consignment was split into two containers, but upon inspection, it was found that the 40 ft. container was empty, and the seal did not match the documentation. The appellants paid duty on the entire consignment, including the missing pieces. The Tribunal noted that the examination was conducted in the presence of a Preventive Officer of Customs, and the discrepancy in the containers was not disputed by the Revenue. 2. The Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the claim for refund, citing that the examination by a private surveyor was not carried out before the Proper Officer. However, the Tribunal found that the Preventive Officer of Customs was present during the inspection. The Bill of Entry and Packing List mentioned the cargo loaded in the containers but did not confirm the physical stuffing. The appellants requested a joint survey in the presence of the Proper Officer, which was conducted with the Preventive Officer of Customs. 3. The Tribunal accepted the appellants' submissions that the 40 ft. container did not contain the machinery items, leading to an excess duty payment of Rs. 35,25,770. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed for the refund of the excess duty paid. The Tribunal directed the refund to be made in accordance with the law, recognizing the discrepancy in the received goods compared to the Bill of Entry and the Packing List. This judgment highlights the importance of accurate documentation and physical verification of imported goods to avoid overpayment of duties. The presence of customs officials during inspections and joint surveys can play a crucial role in resolving discrepancies and securing refunds for excess payments.
|
