9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (8) TMI 336X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and other natural causes might have caused such loss in transit. Therefore it has nothing to do with SEZ unit. Further, the goods were imported to Mumbai port and warehoused there for which Mumbai customs port as defined in Rule 2 of Regulation 1995 should be considered as the port of import. Any subsequent transit of goods are of inland transit for which further submission of bill of entry at Vishakhapatnam was uncalled for - This being the factual position, the finding of Asst. Commissioner Import Mumbai to refuse refund claim on grounds of jurisdiction holding that the Mumbai customs have no authority is erroneous and such finding should not have found support of the Commissioner (Appeals) in his order. More importantly the amended Rule ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... SEZ unit situated in Vishakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh, rewarehoused the same, filed bill of entry again in their SEZ unit for home consumption before the specified officer who assessed the same, noted shortage of goods imported and sent the shipping bill with such noting to the port of importation i.e. Mumbai. On the basis of rewarehousing certificate issued, the Asst. Commissioner- Import Bond of the office of Commissioner of Customs- Import Mumbai issued notice under Section 72(1) of the Customs Act, demanding differential customs duty to the tune of ₹ 51,471/- and ₹ 54,344/- for short receipt of 1820 kgs. And 1900 against bill of entry mentioned quantity of 209 tons and 128 tons respectively. Payment was made by appellant vide ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... efore the Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai who also gave his finding that Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai did not have administrative control over SEZ, Vishakhapatnam district for which he disposed of the appeal directing the appellant for resubmission of refund claim before the appropriate jurisdictional customs authority. Appeal before this Tribunal is against the order passed by the Commissioner of Appeals. 4. In his appeal memo and during course of hearing of the appeal, ld. Counsel for the appellant Shri P. Dwarkanath, Consultant, placing reliance on the Anita Exports cited supra and on other case laws including the case of Roxul Rockwool Insulation India Pvt. Ltd. [2016 (334) ELT 412 (Guj)] submitted that the approach of the Asst. Com ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... te authority since Rule 2 of the Customs Refund Application (Form) Regulation 1995 clearly prescribes that an application for refund shall be made to the Asstt. Commissioner of Customs or Dy. Commissioner having jurisdiction over the customs port and in the instant case since goods were released at Vishakhapatnam port, Mumbai Customs port has no jurisdiction to entertain such a claim for which he prays for rejection of the appeal. 6. Heard both sides at length and perused the case record along with relevant rules, Notifications and case laws cited by the parties. At the outset it has to be made clear that refund has been claimed in respect of short landing of goods at Vishakhapatnam which intimation was communicated to the AC- Bond Mumbai, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
