2016 (11) TMI 136 - AT - Customs

Demand of differential duty - 100% EOU - warehousing of goods - mismatch in the description of goods between the shipping bill and the procurement certificate - Held that - the procurement certificate, commercial invoices, packing list and Bill of Entry for warehousing contain the identical description. The shipping bill has been issued Bill of Entry wise and contain the Bill of Entry No. and date. The total quantity imported and the packages on the Bill of Entry are matching. The only mismatch between the shipping bill and the Bill of Entry is that instead of giving description and quantity of each item of imports, only the description appearing at first Sr. No. has been mentioned and total quantity has been shown against it. The shipping bills have been countersigned and examined by the officers of Customs. The containers have been sealed and sent to the appellant premises. In these circumstances, the only reason for mismatch can be a clerical error. Revenue has not conducted any investigation at the factory to establish that the different goods or different quantity of goods have been received at the factory - demand of duty not sustainable - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Discrepancy in description of goods between shipping bill and procurement certificate.
2. Demand of duty on differential quantity raised due to the mismatch.
3. Argument regarding identical description in various documents presented by the appellant.
4. Allegation of clerical error in the shipping bill.
5. Reliance on impugned order by the respondent.
6. Analysis of documents and findings by the Member (Technical).
7. Lack of investigation by Revenue to establish receipt of different goods or quantity at the factory.

Analysis:
The case involved an EOU, M/s B.R. Steel Products Pvt. Ltd., importing goods with a discrepancy in the description between the shipping bill and the procurement certificate, leading to a demand for duty on the differential quantity. The appellant's counsel argued that the description was consistent across various documents, including the procurement certificate, commercial invoices, and packing list, except for the shipping bill. The shipping bill only reflected the first line of the product description and total quantity against one item, attributing it to a clerical error. The shipping bill bore endorsements from Customs officers and matched the total quantity imported and warehoused, indicating no actual discrepancy in goods received by the appellant.

The Member (Technical) noted that the procurement certificate, commercial invoices, and Bill of Entry for warehousing had identical descriptions, whereas the shipping bill mentioned only the first item's description and quantity, causing the mismatch. The shipping bill was issued Bill of Entry wise and contained relevant details, with containers sealed and sent to the appellant's premises after Customs examination. Despite the discrepancy in the shipping bill, no investigation by Revenue at the factory established receipt of different goods or quantities. Consequently, the Member found no merit in the impugned order and allowed the appeal, emphasizing the clerical error as the likely cause of the mismatch.

The respondent relied on the impugned order, but the analysis of documents and findings by the Member (Technical) highlighted the consistency in descriptions across various documents, underscoring the clerical error in the shipping bill. The lack of concrete evidence or investigation by Revenue to substantiate the alleged discrepancy further weakened the case against the appellant. The judgment, pronounced on 02.09.2016, favored the appellant, emphasizing the importance of thorough examination and accurate documentation in import processes to avoid unwarranted duty demands based on clerical errors.