9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Refund claim rejection for import duty on short-landed goods. Analysis: The judgment revolves around the rejection of a refund claim amounting to Rs. 4,41,492.00 by the appellants for import duty on 953 pieces of Zinc Ingots short-landed out of 5,616 pieces imported. The appellants, engaged in manufacturing Electric Dry Cell Batteries, entered into a contract for supply with a UK-based supplier. Despite filing a bill of entry and paying the duty, upon delivery, they found a shortage of 953 pieces of Ingots. The appellants notified the authorities, filed a refund claim with the Assistant Commissioner of Customs, and provided requested documents. The refund claim was rejected citing non-compliance with Public Notice No. 230/86 and the full delivery acknowledgment by Customs. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the rejection, emphasizing the importers' burden of proof under the Customs Act, stating the loss was not proven before clearance for home-consumption. The appellants contested these decisions. The appellants argued that the shortage was evident from the Shed Delivery Order, correspondence with authorities, and independent survey reports. They highlighted the non-landing of goods in Indian Territory, supported by the Calcutta Port Trust certificate and Survey Report attributing the shortage to shipping discrepancies. The appellants referenced prior judgments emphasizing the significance of Port Trust certificates in proving shortages and the obligation to refund duties for short-landed goods. They urged the appeal's allowance, disputing the rejection based on procedural grounds and loss before clearance assumptions. In response, the learned SDR contested the reliance on the Shed Delivery Order and Landing Tally discrepancies, suggesting the possibility of subsequent documents showing full delivery. The SDR argued that non-appearance in the Landing Tally did not confirm non-landing, pointing to the appellants' acknowledgment of full delivery against Customs' verification. The SDR cited previous decisions to support the rejection of the appeal, emphasizing the appellants' acknowledgment and lack of definitive evidence against full delivery. After careful consideration, the Tribunal found merit in the appellants' arguments. They noted the established shortage of 953 pieces of Zinc Ingots, as evidenced by various documents and correspondence. The Tribunal dismissed the presumption of subsequent delivery documents and emphasized the lack of concrete evidence to rebut the initial findings. The Tribunal highlighted the significance of the Calcutta Port Trust certificate, Survey Report, and timely refund claim filing. Relying on precedents and the appellants' compliance with duty payment procedures, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants, granting the refund for the short-landed goods. The impugned orders were set aside, providing consequential reliefs to the appellants.
|
