2010 (12) TMI 143 - AT - Customs

Refund - Bearings were shipped separately under two airway bills whereas the invoice was only one and the purchase order was also only one The clarification that due to bad weather only one out of the three cases could be air freighted in the first shipment and the rest two cases were shipped subsequently - Normally no refund should be allowed unless the shortage is recorded in the presence of customs officials and before the out of charge from customs control is given - Hence, it is evident that the appellants have imported the three bearings under two airway bills but against only one invoice and have paid duty for the same under two respective Bills of Entry - appeal is allowed with consequential benefit to the appellants

Summary

Issues:
1. Assessment of duty on imported goods.
2. Refund of excess duty paid.
3. Discrepancy in shipment and billing details.

Analysis:
1. The appellants placed a purchase order for bearings from a German supplier. The supplier shipped all three bearings under one invoice, adjusting for air freight charges. The appellants paid duty for all three bearings but initially cleared only one package. Subsequently, they cleared the remaining two bearings under a separate Bill of Entry, paying duty again. The appellants sought a refund for the excess duty paid on the two bearings. The authorities rejected the claim, leading to the appeal.

2. The appellants obtained a clarification from the supplier, confirming that all three bearings were shipped together but due to bad weather, only one package was air freighted initially, with the remaining two shipped later. The clarification matched the airway bill numbers provided by the appellants in the Bills of Entry. The Department argued against the refund, citing the absence of shortage notes in the examination reports. However, the details in the Bills of Entry, airway bills, invoice, and the supplier's clarification supported the appellants' claim. The appellants paid excess duty for two bearings initially, which were imported later, and the authorities had accepted proportionate value for assessment in the subsequent clearance.

3. The Tribunal found that the appellants had imported three bearings under two airway bills but against one invoice, paying duty twice for the same goods. The initial excess duty payment was due to the assessing officer considering the entire invoiced value for three bearings, even though only one package was initially imported. Considering the documentary evidence and the circumstances, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants, allowing the appeal and granting a refund of the excess duty paid against the first Bill of Entry. The impugned orders were set aside, providing consequential benefit to the appellants.