2009 (1) TMI 254 - AT - Customs

LCD Panels the consignment of 1200 pieces of LCD panels, though initially booked under one master airway bill and carried by the same aircraft, was split up into two house airway bills, each for 600 pieces without informing the importer (Appellants) and for this reason, in the first bill of entry, the entire quantity of 1200 pieces was mentioned as House Airway bills did not mention the number of pieces and the duty was paid on the basis - 2nd part of the consignment which had arrived by the same aircraft and after locating the same, filed a second B/E and after 100% examination by the customs, paid the duty again on 600 pieces as per the custom s advice, that this is a case where in respect of the same goods 600 pieces of LCD panels, duty has been paid twice held that - this is not a case of short shipment - against actual quantity of 600 pieces, duty had been paid on 1200 pieces, the Appellants are eligible for refund of the customs duty paid

Summary

The appellate tribunal CESTAT, New Delhi, under the direction of Shri Rakesh Kumar, 2009 2009 (1) TMI 254 - CESTAT, New Delhi, heard an appeal against an order-in-appeal from the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) related to a consignment of 1200 pieces of LCD panels imported from China. The consignment was split into two house airway bills, leading to confusion. The appellant initially paid duty on 1200 pieces but only received 600. The Assistant Commissioner rejected the refund claim, but the Commissioner (Appeals) overturned this decision. The Tribunal remanded the case back to the Commissioner (Appeals) for further examination of evidence. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the original order, citing a lack of verification reports. The appellant argued that the split consignment led to the overpayment of duty. The Department claimed that the short shipment was only detected after the out of charge order. After reviewing the evidence, the tribunal found that the split consignment was the root cause of the issue and ruled in favor of the appellant, allowing the refund claim. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was granted with consequential relief.