Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2008 (12) TMI 559

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... s Rules, 2006 and transshipment of the consignment was permitted from the Sikka Port for Reliance Special Economic Zone by road; that the said consignment was discharged at Sikka Port and transferred to RSEZ in open trucks/trailers during the period from 29-5-06 to 11-6-06; that no weighment of the consignment was done at Sikka Port as no weighment facility existed there; that the said consignment was transported to RSEZ by trucks/trailers and was examined at the entry gate of RSEZ by Customs officer and allowed entry inside RSEZ during the said period; that it was noticed that, total number of bundles i.e. 10,727 bundles of Weldable Debars as mentioned in the import documents were tallied, whereas the total quantity of goods in terms of we .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e of tampering or removal/diversion of any pieces from any of the bundle, there can be no question of any short receipt when all the bundles intact have been received in the SEZ unit; there is no evidence to show that the bundles had been re-bundled or re-packed or were not intact; that there has been no diversion of any portion of the goods while in transit from the Port to the SEZ; that the entire operation of discharge of the goods from the vessel into the barges and subsequent transport to the SEZ had been monitored by the Surveyors, J.C. Gupta Co. P. Ltd. who by their report dt. 19-6-06 certified that the entire quantify discharged from the vessel has been received in the SEZ and that there is no shortage whatsoever, that minor discr .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... al weight and the weight recorded at the SEZ and there was any short receipt; that it is also an accepted normal phenomenon as held in the decisions referred to above that, a minor discrepancy which was only to the extent of 2.45% is attributable to an error/valuation in weighing equipments and carrying out of weighment at two different places; that the Assistant Commissioner has not accepted the international norm of accepting tolerance of variation in the weight within certain limits; that the Purchase Order, Bill of Lading and Packing List themselves indicate that the weight mentioned therein is subject to variation between -3.5% to +5% and since the discrepancy in their case is of only 2.45%, the same is within the said tolerance limit; .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... onfirmed. He relied upon Tribunal s decision in case of Savita Chemicals v. CCE - 2004 (176) E.L.T. 239 (Tri.-Mumbai) and confirmed the Customs duty on the ground of shortages of the imported goods received at the SEZ unit. 6. We have heard Shri J.C. Patel, Shri V.K. Jain, learned Advocates on behalf of the appellant and also Ms. M.I.J. Micheal, learned Jt. CDR on behalf of the Revenue. 7. As is seen from the impugned order, there is no dispute the bars totally tallied in bundle as well as in numbers. The goods received at the appellant s end were examined by the jurisdictional authority as is clear from the certificate given on the Bill of Entry. As per the said noting on the bill of entry, Shri B.L. Meena, Supdt. RSEZ directed the off .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... he importer, will not lead to the fact that the entire consignment has not reached the appellant s factory. Appellants have produced on record, the technical literature of the bars by British Standard wherein the weight of the individual bars are given subject to tolerance limit. The tolerance limit of the bar of 12 mm and over shows the same to be 4.5. The variation in the present consignment is within the same tolerance limit. We also note that the entire operation was monitored by the surveyor and no discrepancy was found by him. As such, we find no reason to hold that the goods were less received by the appellant holding it liable to pay the duty especially when there is no dispute about the number of bundles received by the appellant .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates