2005 (3) TMI 636 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
Claim for refund of Customs Duty rejection, Short receipt of goods, Excess payment of duty, Unjust enrichment.

Claim for refund of Customs Duty rejection:
The appellants' claim for refund of Customs Duty was rejected by the original authority, and the first Appellate Authority confirmed this decision. The appellant approached the Tribunal seeking relief against the order. The appellant had paid Customs Duty for 748 sheets, but only received 450 sheets due to a mistake by the foreign supplier in sending the items in two consignments. The mistake was not detected during clearance, and the appellant later paid duty again for the balance quantity of 298 sheets. The refund claim was rejected for lack of evidence regarding short receipt and unjust enrichment.

Short receipt of goods:
The circumstances leading to the refund claim included the appellant ordering 748 sheets but receiving only 450 due to the foreign supplier sending the items in two consignments. The mistake was discovered only after clearance, and the appellant paid duty again for the balance quantity of 298 sheets. The foreign supplier acknowledged the mistake in a letter, and there was evidence of short receipt through various documents submitted, including invoices, certificates, and letters.

Excess payment of duty:
The appellant paid duty for 748 sheets but received only 450 due to the mistake in sending two consignments. The appellant paid duty again for the balance quantity of 298 sheets. The excess duty paid was not passed on to customers, as certified by the Chartered Accountant. The excess duty paid was accounted for in the company's accounts under Customs Duty receivable.

Unjust enrichment:
The appellant claimed a refund of Rs. 1,20,811 for the excess duty paid on 298 sheets. The Chartered Accountant certified that the excess duty paid was not passed on to customers and was reflected in the company's accounts. The Tribunal found sufficient evidence of short receipt of goods, excess payment of duty, and non-passing of the burden of excess duty to customers. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief, if any.