9911796707
TMI Blog1991 (4) TMI 228X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g, imported a consignment consisting of two boxes of various components. They paid the duty on the entire invoice value under Bill of Entry Cash No. 132 dated 30-6-1984. However, when the goods were examined, the concerned Appraiser of the Customs Department, he found only one box and the other box was not available for examination. He however held that the contents of both the boxes were packed in one box and gave examination report on that basis. The Bill of Entry was amended and also the IGM entry was amended and the goods were cleared. However, the appellants noticed that 4 items had not been received by them and they corresponded with the suppliers, who confirmed that all the items had been shipped in two boxes. Thereupon the appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... only woke up to the shortages in February 1986 and hence though the goods have suffered duty twice, the claim is barred by limitation as stipulated under Sec. 27 of the Customs Act. The present appeal is against the aforesaid order. 4. After hearing both the sides, we find that the undisputed facts are that the consignment originally was manifested for two boxes and one of the boxes only was produced for examination. The Appraiser seems to have concluded that the contents of both the packages have been packed in one box and made an endorsement to that effect. Even though he has mentioned that the item 30 of the Invoice was missing, it was found to be very much in tact and no claim is made in respect of that item. It is only in respect of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e payment of duty again does not arise. This is not a case of adjustment of duty. It is a case of goods having already suffered the duty but retained in the Customs area because the goods were not located and produced by the Port Trust. In such a case the question of applying Sec. 13 or Sec. 23 does not arise. If the appellants have been asked to pay duty again, on the same goods, for which duty has already been paid, the second payment is an excess payment and the excess collection has been made as per the demand of the customs authorities. When the claim has been filed within the time limit from the date of this excess payment, it is to be considered under Sec. 27 of the Customs Act and cannot be rejected as time barred. In this view of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
