2007 (11) TMI 225 - AT - Customs

Appellant filed B/E for import of 14.4MT of Tetrahydrofuran under DEPB Scheme by mistake duty was calculated & paid through DEPB pass book on 28.8 MT instead of 14.4 MT - arithmetical error on the face of the records, could have been rectified by the lower authorities by themselves or on being pointed out by assessee, u/s 154 Custom Act - excess amount of the duty debited by the appellant in the DEPB passbook is directed to be re-credited to their DEPB pass book

Summary

Issues:
1. Calculation of duty payable on imported goods
2. Assessment and re-assessment of goods cleared from customs custody
3. Rectification of arithmetical errors in duty payment

Analysis:
1. The appellant filed a Bill of Entry for the import of Tetrahydrofuran under the DEPB Scheme, paying duty on 28.8 MT instead of the actual 14.4 MT imported. The Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appeal, stating that re-assessment is not possible after goods are cleared from customs custody. The appellant argued that they only purchased 14.4 MT, not 28.8 MT, and presented evidence to support their claim. The Tribunal found discrepancies in the gross and net weights mentioned in the bill of entry, supporting the appellant's contention of an error in duty payment due to miscalculation.

2. The Tribunal examined the High Seas Sale contract and customs reports, confirming that the appellant had indeed cleared only 80 drums of Tetrahydrofuran, equivalent to 14.4 MT. The Tribunal agreed with the appellant's argument that the gross weight mentioned in the bill of entry contradicted the claimed 28.8 MT, leading to an arithmetical error in duty payment. Referring to the Customs Act, the Tribunal highlighted the possibility of rectifying such errors under Section 154, citing a previous case where a similar error was rectified.

3. Relying on legal precedents and the provision for rectification of clerical errors in duty payment, the Tribunal set aside the Commissioner's order and directed the re-crediting of the excess duty amount debited in the DEPB passbook to the appellant. The decision emphasized the importance of rectifying arithmetical errors in duty payment and ensuring compliance with legal provisions for such corrections.