2024 (4) TMI 28 - AT - Customs

Refund of Special Additional Duty of Customs paid - denial of refund on the ground that goods described in the Bills of Entry are not the goods which have been sold as per invoices produced by the appellant - HELD THAT - The original authority has misconceived that since the goods have been imported by appellant s Branch at Hyderabad, the goods have to travel upto Hyderabad and then be delivered to the customer at Sivakasi. A person who is in Mumbai, Hyderabad or any other place in India can import goods at Chennai port. It is not necessary that the goods have to come back to the said customer at Mumbai or Hyderabad and then be delivered to the customer to whom the goods are to be sold. The importer can make arrangements to deliver the goods to the customer from the port itself. This being so, the assumption made by the original authority that it is impossible for the goods to travel upto Hyderabad and then be delivered to the buyer at Sivakasi, is highly erroneous. The invoices are raised by the importer appellant which is the Hyderabad Branch. The rejection of refund claims is without any factual basis. The impugned order to the extent of rejecting the refund claims in respect of two Bills of Entry and the invoice Nos.157 158/2013 requires to be set aside - Appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues: Refund claim rejection based on discrepancy between goods imported and goods sold.

Summary:
The appellants filed refund claims under Customs Notification No.102/2007-Cus for Special Additional Duty of Customs paid at the time of import. The original authority partially sanctioned the refund, but rejected the claim for two Bills of Entry citing discrepancy between the dates of invoices and Bill of Entry. The appellant appealed to the Commissioner (Appeals) who upheld the rejection, leading to further appeals.

The main contention raised by the appellant's counsel was that the Department rejected the claims based on assumptions. The appellant had ordered goods for import through Chennai Airport, with the goods intended for delivery in Sivakasi, Tamil Nadu. Despite the Hyderabad branch placing the order, the goods were transported from Chennai to Sivakasi, as evidenced by consignment notes. The Chartered Accountant certificate also supported the correlation between the imported goods and the goods sold. The appellant argued that the rejection was unfounded and requested the appeals to be allowed.

The Department's Authorized Representative reiterated the findings of the impugned order during the hearing.

The crucial issue for consideration was whether the rejection of refund claims due to alleged discrepancies between the goods described in the Bills of Entry and the goods sold in the invoices was legally justified.

The original authority's decision to reject the refund claim was based on the presumption that goods imported by the Hyderabad branch had to travel to Hyderabad before being delivered to Sivakasi, which was deemed erroneous. The consignment notes indicated that the goods were transported directly from Chennai to Sivakasi, bypassing the need to return to Hyderabad. The rejection of the refund claims lacked factual basis, and the impugned order was set aside, allowing the appeals with consequential reliefs.

In conclusion, the rejection of the refund claims was found to be unjustified, and the appeals were allowed with appropriate reliefs.