2009 (1) TMI 222 - AT - Customs

Refund of customs duty short receipt of goods - appellants states that the crude palm oil was initially, through pipe line, un-loaded to the shore tank at Budge and from there, the same was carried by the tanker lorry to the factory at Belgharia. He states that the survey report was given by the government approved private surveyor and the shortages noticed have been subsequently counter-signed by the Central Excise authorities. Hence, the Customs duties relating to short receipt should be refunded to the appellants - held that - The Central Excise authorities have merely signed the survey report and there is no evidence that they were associated with the survey and in any case, through such certification, it is indicated that how much of the impugned goods have been received by the factory. The same is not, however, relevant for claiming refund of Customs duties which requires certification by Customs authorities while the goods were within Customs area under Customs control before out of charge was given by the Proper Officer of Customs Refund not allowed.

Summary

Issues: Refund of Customs duties for short receipt of crude palm oil.

Analysis:
The judgment revolves around the issue of refund of Customs duties for the short receipt of crude palm oil by the appellants. The appellant's representative argued that the crude palm oil was unloaded to the shore tank at Budge Budge and then transported to the factory at Belgharia, with shortages duly certified by a government-approved private surveyor and counter-signed by Central Excise authorities. On the other hand, the Department's representative contended that the claim was rejected as the shortages were not certified by Customs authorities. The Member (T) analyzed the situation and found that the Customs authorities did not note the claim of short receipt in the relevant bill of entries during the out of charge process at Budge Budge. The survey conducted by the appellants could not be the basis for claiming the refund of Customs duties, as it did not have the necessary certification by Customs authorities while the goods were within Customs control. The Central Excise authorities' involvement in signing the survey report was deemed insufficient for refund purposes. Therefore, the absence of certification by Customs authorities regarding shortages led to the dismissal of the appeal, as the claim could not be entertained without such certification. The judgment highlights the importance of proper certification by Customs authorities for refund claims related to goods under Customs control, emphasizing the procedural requirements in such cases.