9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Admission of additional evidence. 2. Refund claim for duty on stainless steel circles alleged to be stainless steel scraps. 3. Evidence of wrong supply from the supplier. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Admission of Additional Evidence: The appellants filed a Misc. Application requesting the admission of documents in Paper Book No. 2, which were not presented before the First Appellate Authority. The appellants argued that these documents, which emerged post-January 1983, were crucial. The Joint Chief Departmental Representative opposed this, emphasizing that additional evidence should only be admitted if it is essential to ascertain facts or rectify inherent defects. The Tribunal reviewed the documents and found that they were created after the adjudication and first appeal and thus rejected the application, stating that attempts to introduce subsequently created evidence must be discouraged. 2. Refund Claim for Duty on Stainless Steel Circles Alleged to be Stainless Steel Scraps: The appellants claimed a refund of duty on the basis that 7818 Kgs. of imported stainless steel circles were actually stainless steel scraps. The Assistant Collector rejected the claim, noting the Insurance survey report was conducted post-clearance from Customs, and there was no evidence of the wrong supply before clearance. The Collector of Customs (Appeals) upheld this decision, highlighting the possibility of tampering with the consignment. 3. Evidence of Wrong Supply from the Supplier: The Tribunal noted that the appellants failed to provide conclusive evidence of wrong supply from the suppliers at the relevant time. The correspondence and documents submitted were created after the import and clearance, and thus, could not be considered reliable. The Tribunal emphasized that refund claims must be supported by evidence that conclusively establishes the facts at the time of import and clearance. The Tribunal found no explanation for the repaired top lids of the drums, which raised doubts about the integrity of the claim. Separate Judgment by V.P. Gulati: V.P. Gulati dissented regarding the admission of additional evidence, arguing that the additional documents should be considered. He noted that the survey reports, though dated post-clearance, indicated the presence of steel scrap mixed with stainless steel circles. He observed that the appellants had corresponded with the suppliers and the Indian embassy, and the suppliers eventually acknowledged the possibility of inadvertent packing errors. However, he concluded that the evidence was insufficient to establish a wrong supply conclusively, as the suppliers did not admit to supplying scrap, and the customs authorities did not detect the discrepancy during the initial examination. Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, with the majority of the Tribunal members agreeing that there was no acceptable evidence to support the appellants' claim of wrong supply. The lower authorities' decisions were upheld, and the refund claim was denied.
|
