9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (9) TMI 320X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lhi - 11 for the supply of 20 number of 30 HP A JOHNSON outboard motors at the rate of Rs. 49,750/- each. As it was required urgently the appellants immediately arranged for the import of the same from M/s. Pantime Ltd., Hongkong (by Telex and Telephone) as a result of which they were despatched on 22-3-1989 vide Air India Way Bill No. 098-5276 4865. Immediately on receipt of the notice in that regard, the Bill of Entry No. 217979 was filed by the appellant on 27-3-1989 itself along with the suppliers invoice No. 3172, dated 25-3-1989 and suppliers packing specification, and requested for the release of the goods free of custom duty under Notification No. 195/76-Cus, dated 2-8-1976, as amended. The outboard motors were for fitment by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reted that the duty was borne by them. On the principle of unjust enrichment, the claim was rejected under Section 28(c) (d) of the Customs Act. The appellant has produced the purchase order dated 17-3-1989, Telex order dated 18-3-1989, the certificate dated 31-3-1989 of the Naval Headquarters and its letter dated 3-4-1989 releasing a cheque for Rs. 10,34,800/- and its photocopy, the certificate of the chartered accountant dated 4-4-1998 about the appellant s accounts, the letter dated 21-4-1989 No. DD2531 on the basis of which the claim has been rejected and the letter of the appellant dated 28-5-1988 to the Naval authorities and the reply dated 2-7-1998 under No. 622. Still the lower authorities have rejected the refund claim without co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -1992 by the appellant to the naval officer in-charge INC Adayar, Fort, St. George, Chennai shows that the supply order under which 20 numbers of 30 HP Johnson Outboard Motors on supply order was received on without custom duty basis as Indian Navy was exempted from paying custom duty by Notification 195/76, and since the goods were required urgently and the customs authorities were taking time in clearing the same, the goods were got released by paying custom duty of Rs. 2,72,170.40 by the appellant thinking to claim it back later on from the customs authorties. The customs department after processing the refund claim sent a letter to the Navy saying that the order was placed with the appellant without customs duty basis and no custom duty ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 195/76, dated 2-8-1976 exempting the payment of customs duty by the Indian Navy on the outboard motors for fitment on the ships, all these things did not arise. In support of the letter of Rare Admiral to the Addl. Commissioner of Customs Imports, there is nothing to show that they have paid the amount to the appellant to pay the Customs duty of Rs. 2,75,170.40. The letter dated 2-7-1998 by the Commander clearly states that no Customs duty was paid by the Navy to the appellant. So there is a positive evidence in support of the evidence that the burden of the duty is not passed on to the naval authorities. The letter dated 2-7-1998 prevails over the letter dated 21-4-1989. So under these circumstances, the case of the appellant has to be, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
