2024 (1) TMI 196 - AT - Customs

EOU - Short shipment of goods - mistake committed in supplier s invoice - HELD THAT - The Department has taken up the matter as an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) contending that the decision of adjudicating authority is premature. There are no finding rendered by Commissioner (Appeals) that the case put forward by the appellant regarding short shipment of goods and mistake in supplier s invoice to be not genuine. Again, it requires to be noted that on 04.04.2011 itself the appellant has approached the officers informing the short shipment. The immediateness in making such request by the appellant draws a strong inference that there is short shipment of goods and it is a mistake in supplier s invoice. The appellant cannot be called upon to pay duty on goods which he has not received. Thus, the order passed by Commissioner (Appeals) cannot be sustained - impugned order is set aside and the order passed by original authority is restored - appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
The issues involved in the judgment include duty demand on short-shipped goods due to a mistake in the supplier's invoice, rejection of amendment of Bill of Entry, and the appellant's appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals).

Duty Demand on Short-Shipped Goods:
The appellant, an EOU, imported goods under a B-17 Bond and faced a discrepancy where the quantity of Rubber Top Pieces received was significantly less than what was declared in the Bill of Entry. The appellant promptly reported the short receipt due to a mistake by the supplier. Despite being advised to pay the customs duties on the short quantity, the original authority dropped the duty demand, recognizing it as a clerical error by the supplier. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside this decision, leading to the appellant's appeal before the Tribunal.

Rejection of Amendment of Bill of Entry:
The appellant sought to correct the error in the Bill of Entry caused by the supplier's mistake in invoicing. They obtained a revised invoice and made multiple attempts to amend the Bill of Entry, but their requests were rejected by the Department. The appellant argued that the demand for duty was unjustified as they had ordered and received only the quantity specified in the original Purchase Order.

Appellant's Appeal Against Commissioner (Appeals) Order:
During the appeal, the appellant presented evidence showing that they had ordered and received only 1100 pairs of Rubber Top Pieces, contrary to the mistakenly invoiced quantity of 11000 pairs. The Tribunal observed that the supplier had acknowledged the error and issued a revised invoice with the correct quantity. The Tribunal concluded that the appellant should not be held liable to pay duty on goods they did not receive, reinstating the original authority's decision and allowing the appeal with consequential reliefs.