2017 (3) TMI 1726 - AT - Customs

Refund of SAD - N/N. 102/2007-Cus., dated 14-9-2007 - refund claim was rejected on the ground that as description of the goods sold by the appellant did not match with the description of the goods imported - Held that - The appellant has imported old and used P-III computer system sets with Keyboard, Mouse and 17 Monitors, whereas the description in the invoice is written as old and used computers parts, after removing computers system which clearly shows that the appellant has sold the parts not the whole of the system and claimed refund of SAD amount paid by the appellant on whole of the computer systems. Admittedly, the whole system has not been sold by the appellant. In that circumstances, the appellant is not entitled for refund claim in terms of N/N. 102/2007. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Refund claim under Notification No. 102/2007-Cus. for SAD amount paid at the time of importation of goods.

Analysis:

1. Refund Claim Rejection: The appellant appealed against the rejection of their refund claim under Notification No. 102/2007-Cus. for the SAD amount paid during the importation of goods. The appellant imported computer systems and paid duty on them. Subsequently, as a trader, the appellant sold the goods, paid VAT, and sought a refund of the SAD amount. However, the refund claim was denied because the description of the goods sold did not match the description of the imported goods. The appellant contended that they sold old and used P-III computer system parts, not the entire system, as indicated in the invoices. The discrepancy in the description led to the rejection of the refund claim.

2. Evaluation of Invoices: Upon examining the invoices provided by the appellant for the sale of goods, it was established that the appellant had indeed sold old and used P-III computer system parts, including keyboards, mice, and 17" monitors. However, the description on the invoices indicated the sale of old and used computer parts after removing the computer system. This discrepancy highlighted that the appellant had sold parts of the system, not the complete system itself. Consequently, the appellant's claim for a refund of the SAD amount paid on the entire computer systems was deemed unjustified.

3. Decision and Upholding of Order: After hearing both parties and reviewing the records, it was concluded that the appellant had not sold the whole computer system but only parts of it. As per Notification No. 102/2007, the appellant was not entitled to a refund claim for the SAD amount paid on the entire systems. Therefore, the impugned order rejecting the refund claim was upheld, and the appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed. The judgment was dictated and pronounced in open court, affirming the decision to dismiss the appeal.

This detailed analysis of the legal judgment outlines the issues involved, the arguments presented by the parties, the evaluation of evidence, and the final decision rendered by the tribunal regarding the refund claim under Notification No. 102/2007-Cus.