2013 (2) TMI 317 - AT - Customs

Short landing of the goods Refund of Custom Duty - Instead of 1000 units of heat detectors only 100 units have been received Whereas custom duty has been paid in respect of 1000 units - CHA who has been duly authorized by the importer has sought for refund vide letter dated 6.9.2006 The importer filed the claim in proper format along with relevant documents on 28.7.2007 - Held that - Since the relevant documents have not been produced along with the claim dated 6.9.2006 and the refund claim was not in the proper format. Nevertheless, it would be in the interest of justice to treat the letter dated 06.9.2006 as refund claim. After all, the whole amount had been deposited but the related goods have undisputedly not arrived in India. Refund allowed. In favour of assessee

Summary

Issues:
1. Refund claim rejection on grounds of time limitation.
2. Short landing of goods and discrepancy in quantity received.
3. Proper filing of refund claim and relevant documents.
4. Applicability of Customs Refund Application Regulation 1995.
5. Commissioner's decision upheld by the Tribunal.

Analysis:
1. The case involved an appeal against the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Bangalore, regarding the rejection of a refund claim on the basis of time limitation. The appellant had imported a consignment of heat detectors, with discrepancies in the quantity received compared to the declared quantity. The original authority rejected the refund claim as time-barred, considering the date of filing as beyond the permissible limit. The Commissioner upheld this decision, leading to the appeal.

2. The issue of short landing of goods and discrepancy in the quantity received was a crucial aspect of the case. The appellant had declared 1000 units of heat detectors in the Bill of Entry, but only 100 units were found in the package upon examination. The discrepancy in quantity raised concerns about the accuracy of the declaration and the clearance process. The Tribunal noted the evidence indicating that a consignment of 1000 units of heat detectors would weigh significantly more than the 18 Kgs declared in the Bill of Entry, highlighting the clear mismatch in the information provided.

3. The proper filing of the refund claim and submission of relevant documents were contested between the parties. The appellant argued that the CHA had notified the Assistant Commissioner about the discrepancy and sought a refund, which was later filed in the prescribed format as directed by the department. The appellant emphasized that the delay in filing was due to procedural requirements and should not bar their claim. The Tribunal considered the sequence of events and the submission of documents, ultimately ruling in favor of treating the initial notification as a valid refund claim.

4. The application of the Customs Refund Application Regulation 1995 was discussed, emphasizing the requirement for filing refund claims with all relevant documents in the prescribed format. The Superintendent (AR) supported the Commissioner's decision based on the time limitation for filing refund applications. However, the Tribunal analyzed the specific circumstances of the case, including the actions of the CHA and the subsequent filing of the claim, to justify the acceptance of the refund claim despite procedural discrepancies.

5. In its judgment, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal with consequential relief as per the law. The Tribunal considered the evidence of short landing of goods, the discrepancies in quantity, and the procedural aspects of the refund claim filing process to arrive at a decision favorable to the appellant. The ruling overturned the Commissioner's decision and highlighted the importance of considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of each case in determining the validity of refund claims and addressing discrepancies in import procedures.