2013 (8) TMI 692 - AT - Customs

Discrepancy in goods - whether after clearance of goods by customs grievance of discrepancy in quantity of goods delivered entertainable - Held that - there was no discrepancy in the report as alleged by appellant - for the refund to be admissible in respect of short shipped goods, verification report from Customs is necessary the verification report was not there - no complaint was lodged at the time of clearance decided against the assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Entertainability of grievance regarding discrepancy in quantity of goods delivered after clearance by customs.
2. Requirement of verification report from Customs for admissibility of refund claim for short shipped goods.
3. Legal infirmity in Vakalatnama due to lack of consent of earlier Counsel.

Issue 1: Entertainability of grievance regarding discrepancy in quantity of goods delivered after clearance by customs:
The judgment clarifies that the law is clear on how to handle cases of short clearance of goods after taking delivery from customs custody. The decision by the Commissioner emphasized that the imported goods were cleared out of charge, and the alleged short shipment was noticed by the appellants themselves at the site without the presence of Custom Officers. The absence of a verification report from Customs post-clearance led to the rejection of the refund claim. As no discrepancy was reported at the time of clearance from customs custody, the appeal was dismissed based on the lack of evidence supporting the alleged discrepancy.

Issue 2: Requirement of verification report from Customs for admissibility of refund claim for short shipped goods:
The judgment highlights the necessity of a verification report from Customs to support refund claims related to short shipped goods. The absence of such a report in the case discussed led to the rejection of the refund claim by the AC. The judgment underscores the importance of official documentation and procedures in substantiating claims for discrepancies in goods received post-customs clearance.

Issue 3: Legal infirmity in Vakalatnama due to lack of consent of earlier Counsel:
The judgment addresses the issue of a legal infirmity in the Vakalatnama submitted by the appellant's counsel. It is noted that the new counsel did not have the consent of the earlier counsel, rendering the Vakalatnama deficient. Citing a previous case, the judgment emphasizes the importance of including the designation or authority of the executants in the Vakalatnama. The court directed the registry to adhere to the mandate of the High Court and scrutinize Vakalatnamas meticulously to ensure compliance with legal requirements.

In conclusion, the judgment delves into the specific legal aspects concerning the entertainability of grievances post-customs clearance, the necessity of official verification reports for refund claims, and the importance of proper documentation in legal proceedings, as exemplified by the scrutiny of the Vakalatnama in the case at hand. The decision provides a detailed analysis of each issue, emphasizing the adherence to legal procedures and requirements in resolving disputes related to customs clearance and refund claims.