2013 (10) TMI 1102 - AT - Customs

Import of Assorted Thickness Cold Rolled Steel Coils - Refund claim towards the SAD paid - Held that - bill of entry shows the description as assorted thickness cold rolled steel coils and the size is given as 0.60mm and 1.0mm. Only the length of the coil varies from 1000mm to 1050mm. If the appellant has cut the length of the imported coil and sold the same in the domestic market, only length can vary and not the thickness. The thickness of the imported goods are 0.6mm, 1.0mm or 1.8mm/2.0mm, whereas the goods sold in the domestic market shows the thickness to be 0.60mm, 0.70mm, 0.80mm, 0.90mm, 1.20mm and 1.50mm. Thus there is a mismatch between the goods imported and the goods sold in the domestic market. Therefore, lower authorities are right in coming to the conclusion that the appellant has not led any documentary evidence in support of his refund claim that the goods which are sold in the domestic market on which he had paid VAT are the same as those imported - Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues: Refund claim rejection based on mismatch between imported goods and goods sold in domestic market.

Analysis:
The appeal and early hearing application were directed against an Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Mumbai. The appellant, a company importing "Assorted Thickness Cold Rolled Steel Coils," filed a refund claim for the Special Additional Duty (SAD) paid. The claim was rejected by the Assistant Commissioner of Customs and the lower appellate authority due to a discrepancy between the sizes of the imported goods and the goods sold in the domestic market. The appellant argued that the assorted sizes of the imported goods matched the various thicknesses mentioned in the domestic sales invoices. However, the authorities concluded that there was a mismatch between the imported goods' thickness and the goods sold domestically, leading to the rejection of the refund claim.

The appellant contended that the goods imported were of assorted sizes, as indicated in the bill of entry, and that the description on the domestic sales invoices showing various thicknesses demonstrated that the goods sold domestically were the same as those imported. On the other hand, the Deputy Commissioner argued that the authorities correctly determined that the goods sold domestically did not match the imported goods based on sales and import documents. The judge carefully examined the bill of entry, noting that while the length of the coil varied, the thickness of the imported goods remained consistent. The mismatch between the thickness of the imported goods (0.6mm, 1.0mm, 1.8mm/2.0mm) and the thickness of the goods sold domestically (0.60mm, 0.70mm, 0.80mm, 0.90mm, 1.20mm, 1.50mm) was highlighted. Consequently, the judge upheld the lower authorities' decision, stating that the appellant failed to provide documentary evidence supporting the claim that the goods sold domestically, on which VAT was paid, were the same as those imported.

In conclusion, the judge found no merit in the appeal and dismissed it, along with disposing of the early hearing application. The decision was based on the mismatch between the description of the imported goods and the goods sold domestically, leading to the rejection of the appellant's refund claim.