2015 (10) TMI 200 - AT - Customs

Conversion of quantity of timber logs Hoppus Ton to cubic meter Timber logs were imported in Hoppus Ton whereas sales were made in cubic meter Appellants had discharged Special Additional Duty at time of importation and after selling in domestic market on payment of VAT, they filed refund claims for amount of SAD paid by them as per Notification No. 102/2007 Authorities reduced refund claim of appellant while adopting conversion at 1.8027 cubic meter Whether authorities were justified in adopting different conversion formula Held that - Tribunal while dealing with similar issue of Royal Timbers 2013 (11) TMI 1300 - CESTAT BANGALORE decided matter in favour of assesse Moreover assesse produced copy of letter of Additional Principal Chief Conservator of Forests (Protection) which also shows that formula followed by appellants is correct In view of above observations appeals have to be allowed with consequential relief to appellants Decided in favour of assesse.

Summary

Issues: Conversion of quantity in Hoppus Ton into cubic meter and vice versa.

Analysis:
The appeals involved the issue of converting timber logs imported in Hoppus Ton into cubic meter for sales, leading to refund claims for Special Additional Duty paid. The appellants used a conversion formula equating one Hoppus Ton to 1.416 cubic meters, while authorities insisted on the international standard of 1.8027 cubic meters. The Tribunal had previously ruled on a similar matter in Commissioner of Customs, Mangalore Vs. Royal Timbers, where a refund was initially granted but later revoked. However, in the present cases, the reduced refund amount was sanctioned from the beginning.

Furthermore, the issue was also examined by VAT authorities following Customs proceedings in Kerala. Physical verification conducted by the Intelligence Officer revealed no discrepancy in the quantity declared by the appellants, supporting the validity of their adopted formula. Evidence, including a letter from the Additional Principal Chief Conservator of Forests and various orders-in-appeal in favor of importers, highlighted the correctness of the formula used by the appellants.

In light of the consistent support from lower authorities, Forest Departments, and previous Tribunal decisions, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the importers, allowing the appeals and providing consequential relief to the appellants.