9911796707
TMI Blog1985 (1) TMI 158X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stant Collector of Customs, MCD, for non-production of the necessary documents. On appeal, the Appellate Collector rejected the appeal holding that subsequent to their appeal, the appellants by their letter dated 17-9-1981 submitted that they had cleared one more case, but the shortlanding certificate remained for 3 cases. The subsequent claim is therefore, contradictory to the shortlanding certificate. The Appellate Collector further observed that the appellants admit that they were not having packing list showing the contents and value of the individual items. 3. In their revision application the appellants submitted that the packing list does not show the value and that in their letter dated 1-10-1981 they have intimated that the invoi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o urged by Shri Jain that the records of the appellate authority does not contain the letter dated 1-10-1981 said to have been sent by the appellants. He further submitted that the appellants have only forwarded photostat copies of the invoice and those photostat copies did not contain the particulars of the shortlanded package. 6. Considered the submissions made on both sides. The Bombay Port Trust is the custodian of the goods landed in the customs area. It has a statutory obligation to issue certificate as to the goods received. The certificate issued by the Bombay Port Trust shall have to be normally accepted, unless there are cogent reasons to reject. The only ground set out by the Appellate Collector for not placing any reliance on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... me the original invoice which indicates the value case-wise. The order of the appellate Collector does not indicate that they did not produce the copies of the invoice pertaining to the shortlanding goods. But as stated earlier Shri Jain has pointed out that the photostat copies produced by the appellants do not contain the particulars of the packages in respect of which refund is claimed. 7. It can be again said that the appellants had been callous in perusing their remedies. If they had taken proper care at proper time they could have saved the public time and expenses. But then that by itself cannot be a ground to reject the just claim of the appellants. 8. In the result, I allow the appeal and set aside the orders passed by the auth ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
