1988 (2) TMI 251 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
Delay condonation for supplementary appeals, rejection of refund claims, correct assessment under Customs Act, 1962.

Delay Condonation for Supplementary Appeals:
The Tribunal considered applications for condonation of delay in presenting two supplementary appeals alongside the main appeal. The Department had no objection to condone the delay since the main appeal was submitted on time. The delay was condoned, and the supplementary appeals were taken on record.

Rejection of Refund Claims:
The appellants were aggrieved by the rejection of their three refund claims totaling around Rs. 8.5 lakhs by lower authorities. The dispute arose from an incorrect unit price in the import invoice for Caprolactum. The appellants argued that the correct price should have been Dutch Guilders 5830 per M.T. based on their indent and oral agreement with the supplier. Despite the appellants' contentions and evidence of a revised invoice, the authorities rejected their claims citing evidence of State Trading Corporation's contracting at a higher rate.

Correct Assessment under Customs Act, 1962:
The Tribunal analyzed the assessment under Section 14(i)(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. The appellants' claim of the lower price not being acceptable under this section was upheld. The Tribunal noted that the ordinary price in international trade around the time of the contract was higher than what the appellants claimed. The Tribunal found that the appellants' purchase price aligned with the normal ruling price, leading to the dismissal of all three appeals for a refund.

Separate Judgment:
One of the judges disagreed with the majority opinion. The dissenting judge believed that the appellants demonstrated the incorrectness of the invoice and the refund by the suppliers. The judge also highlighted the lack of evidence disproving the refund and the unsubstantiated admission regarding the State Trading Corporation's import price. Based on the evaluation of evidence, the dissenting judge concluded that the appeal should be allowed.

In conclusion, the majority of the Tribunal dismissed all three appeals, emphasizing the correct assessment of the import price and the lack of evidence supporting the appellants' claims.