2010 (9) TMI 823 - CGOVT - Customs

Revision application - refund claim - Short-landing of goods - Commissioner (Appeals) in his impugned order-in-appeal dated 7-8-2008 observed that in terms of P.No. 230-Cus., dated 13-5-1986 there should have been a joint survey to record the short-landing of goods and applicant should have got the shortages noted in the customs examination report on the reverse of duplicate and triplicate Bill of Entry which was not done - The adjudicating authority had admitted the non-availability of duplicate Bill of Entry. Since no joint survey was held, the applicant was required to make an application to Assistant Commissioner (Docks) in terms of said Public Notice for examination of goods in his presence for noting the shortages. Applicant could not produce copy of any such application. It indicates neither any such request was made by applicant nor any shortages were recorded in the duplicate Bill of Entry. Further, whenever any shortages are recorded in duplicate Bill of Entry, the examination report is also recorded in triplicate copy of Bill of Entry. In this case, there is no examination report on the triplicate Bill of Entry. Adjudicating authority has admitted that duplicate Bill of Entry was not available. Therefore there is no documentary evidence certified by customs available on record which can confirm the applicant s claim of shortages. The CPT letter dated 16-5-1991 addressed to applicant issued quite late did not specify any quantity of short landed goods. It cannot be treated as a short-landing certificate because it simply says that (77) Bills and (85) Pcs of pipe were landed in D condition . Government therefore observes that applicant s claim of short-landing of goods is not supported by any valid documentary evidence as required in the Customs Public Notice No. 230-Cus., dated 13-5-86, Government observes that impugned refund claim was rightly rejected by Commissioner (Appeals). Government finds no infirmity in the impugned order-in-appeal and therefore upholds the same, revision application is rejected being devoid of merit.

Summary

Issues:
Refund claim rejection based on time-barred submission and non-compliance with Public Notice requirements.

Analysis:
The case involves a refund claim filed by M/s. Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. against short-landing of goods, initially submitted on 7-6-1991. The claim was rejected as time-barred by the Assistant Commissioner of Customs, leading to a series of appeals and orders. The Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) remanded the case multiple times due to delays and non-compliance issues, with the adjudicating authority repeatedly rejecting the claim based on Public Notice requirements. The applicant argued for the acceptance of a short-landing certificate and Marine Survey report as valid proof. However, the Government noted the lack of documentary evidence supporting the claim, as required by Customs Public Notice No. 230-Cus., dated 13-5-1986.

The Government reviewed the case records and observed the history of the claim rejections, emphasizing the importance of complying with procedural requirements. The Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the claim based on the absence of joint surveys, shortages noted in examination reports, and non-availability of essential documents like duplicate Bill of Entry. The Government highlighted the lack of valid evidence confirming the alleged short-landing of goods, undermining the applicant's case.

The applicant referenced a court decision regarding the validity of a Public Notice, but the Government differentiated the case at hand, stating that the relevant Public Notice was not declared null and void. Consequently, the Government upheld the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) to reject the refund claim, finding no merit in the applicant's arguments. The revision application was deemed devoid of merit and subsequently rejected by the Government.

In conclusion, the judgment focused on the procedural compliance and documentary evidence requirements for refund claims, emphasizing the need for valid proof to support such claims. The case highlights the significance of adhering to Customs regulations and providing necessary documentation to substantiate refund requests, ultimately leading to the rejection of the applicant's claim.