Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + CGOVT Customs - 2010 (9) TMI CGOVT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2010 (9) TMI 823 - CGOVT - CustomsRevision application - refund claim - Short-landing of goods - Commissioner (Appeals) in his impugned order-in-appeal dated 7-8-2008 observed that in terms of P.No. 230-Cus., dated 13-5-1986 there should have been a joint survey to record the short-landing of goods and applicant should have got the shortages noted in the customs examination report on the reverse of duplicate and triplicate Bill of Entry which was not done - The adjudicating authority had admitted the non-availability of duplicate Bill of Entry. Since no joint survey was held, the applicant was required to make an application to Assistant Commissioner (Docks) in terms of said Public Notice for examination of goods in his presence for noting the shortages. Applicant could not produce copy of any such application. It indicates neither any such request was made by applicant nor any shortages were recorded in the duplicate Bill of Entry. Further, whenever any shortages are recorded in duplicate Bill of Entry, the examination report is also recorded in triplicate copy of Bill of Entry. In this case, there is no examination report on the triplicate Bill of Entry. Adjudicating authority has admitted that duplicate Bill of Entry was not available. Therefore there is no documentary evidence certified by customs available on record which can confirm the applicant’s claim of shortages. The CPT letter dated 16-5-1991 addressed to applicant issued quite late did not specify any quantity of short landed goods. It cannot be treated as a short-landing certificate because it simply says that “(77) Bills and (85) Pcs of pipe were landed in ‘D’ condition”. Government therefore observes that applicant’s claim of short-landing of goods is not supported by any valid documentary evidence as required in the Customs Public Notice No. 230-Cus., dated 13-5-86, Government observes that impugned refund claim was rightly rejected by Commissioner (Appeals). Government finds no infirmity in the impugned order-in-appeal and therefore upholds the same, revision application is rejected being devoid of merit.
|