2016 (11) TMI 1613 - AT - Customs

Refund of SAD - N/N. 102/2007 - mismatch of refund on the ground that there is mismatch in the description of the goods in the Bill of Entry and the one mentioned in the sales invoices - HELD THAT - It is seen that Notification No. 102/2007, dated 14-9-2007 inter alia requires the importer to provide copies of sale invoices of the imported goods in respect of which refund is claimed along with documents evidencing payment of the special additional duty of Customs. It is imperative that match between these two documents is established that goods for which SAD has been suffered have indeed been sold. Only when subsequent sale is established there can be allowance of full benefit of notification since this is the very purpose of the said notification. As per appellant's own admission, the goods being various grades of HDPE/LDPE/LLDPE granules, unless there is an acceptable match between description of the imported goods as given in the Bill of Entry and corresponding sale invoices, the identity of the goods will not be able to be established by the refund sanctioning authority. This being the case, discrepancy in description of goods was not in the nature of curable defect, the appeal is dismissed. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues: Refund claim for 4% Additional Duty of Customs; Discrepancy in description of goods between Bill of Entry and sales invoices.

Analysis:
1. The dispute revolves around a refund claim for 4% Additional Duty of Customs concerning the import of HDPE, LDPE, and LLDPE granules. The original authority rejected the refund claim citing a mismatch in the description of goods between the Bill of Entry and sales invoices. The respondent's counsel argued that although there was a discrepancy, there was a correlation between the imported plastic granules and the goods sold, suggesting the discrepancy was minor and should not be a serious issue.

2. The appellant's representative contended that the discrepancy in the description of goods was a substantive defect, preventing a clear correlation between the imported and sold goods. The Notification No. 102/2007 mandates establishing a match between the goods imported and those sold to claim a refund. The purpose of the notification is to simplify the refund process for imports subject to 8% SAD. While minor discrepancies in invoicing can be overlooked, a significant discrepancy in the description of goods, as in this case, poses a challenge. Without a clear match between the goods described in the Bill of Entry and the sales invoices, the identity of the goods cannot be established for the refund authority, leading to the dismissal of the appeal due to the non-curable nature of the discrepancy.

3. The judgment emphasizes the importance of establishing a clear link between the imported goods and those sold to claim a refund under Notification No. 102/2007. While minor discrepancies may be acceptable, a significant discrepancy in the description of goods can hinder the refund process. In this case, the lack of a proper match between the goods imported and sold led to the dismissal of the appeal, highlighting the necessity of accurate documentation and alignment between the Bill of Entry and sales invoices for successful refund claims related to Additional Duty of Customs.