2009 (2) TMI 168

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... goods under second appraisement system i.e. based on documents produced by the appellant to the Customs authorities; and the assessed duty was paid on the same day 26-8-2006. However, on examination of the goods subsequently by the customs officers, it was found that one pallet which was manifested in the IGM and for which the appellant filed Bill of entry was not available. This is a case of short landing. There was perhaps enquiry relating to the non-availability of the goods and finally the available goods have been re-assessed in terms of Section 17(4) of the Customs Act and Out of Customs Charge (OCC) dated 23-3-2007 was issued and importer's copy of bill of entry has been issued to the appellant. (b) The appellant filed refund claim .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ry was assessed and duty was also paid hoping that the ordered quantity of goods arrived, On subsequent examination, which is the practice in second appraisement system, part of the goods were found to be not available. This is a case where the appellant is put to inconvenience in not getting the goods ordered and making the deposit of higher amount in advance. The second appraisement system has been introduced to enable quick clearances, as in most of the cases the goods declared in the bill of entry and those found on examination were generally found to tally. This is not one such case. 7. In the present case, only small quantity was found in the consignment and the said quantity was also cleared on advance licence without the need for a .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Note No. 3 thereof reads as under:- "Complete documentary evidence which has a bearing on the claim should be furnished in the first instance, failing which the claim is likely to be summarily rejected." 10. Thus with a view to see that the claim is not Thus with a summarily rejected, the petitioner was requited to furnish "short landing certificate", which is dated 11-6-1974. Obviously, before that date, the petitioner could not have submitted his application. Therefore, considering this date, it cannot be said that the application of the petitioner was barred by limitation in view of Section 27(4) of the Act. 8. In view of the above, I allow the appeal with consequential relief. (Dictated and pronounced in the open Court)
Case law .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X