9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (6) TMI 185X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e appellant paid Rs. 75,96,272/- by way of duty provisionally on the goods. Later, on the strength of an ullage survey report dated 10-10-1996, the appellant claimed a refund of Rs. 10,10,203/- being the duty paid on short landed quantity of 174.154 MT. The claim was admitted and the said amount was paid to the appellant on 26-3-1997. 3. Later on, the Department became aware of the fact that the ullage survey report dated 10-10-1996 filed in support of the claim for refund was not the only survey done when the vessel arrived at Bombay Docks. In fact on 5-10-1996, an ullage survey was done and the findings were that the vessel carried 1465.321 MT of the appellant's cargo. The appellant did not furnish this report when he claimed refund of d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t at the port of loading, such difference shall be considered as short landed quantity. In the present case, a survey was done before the discharge of the liquid cargo on 5-10-1996. That survey indicated that the vessel was carrying 1465.321 MT of the appellant's cargo. From the records of the case, it is found that the vessel commenced discharge of the cargo after the survey was done on 5-10-1996. Thus, it appears that a part cargo belonging to the appellant was discharged after the first survey was done. The vessel was shifted from Indira Docks to Princess Docks of Bombay Port on 9-10-1996 and commenced discharge of the balance cargo at 5.35 hrs. on 10-10-1996. It appeared that while the discharge was going on, another ullage survey was d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... refore argued that the survey dated 10-10-1996 was reliable document and refund was claimed only on the basis of such a report. He argued that in any case there was no suppression on the part of the appellant as the report dated 10-10-1996 was also signed by the Customs officer. He therefore contended that the refund was rightly granted for the short landed quantity as evidenced from the report dated 10-10-1996. 7. We observe that the survey done on 5-10-1996 showed a figure which is higher than the one mentioned in the two Bills of Entry filed by the appellant for clearance from Customs. In fact the survey dated 5-10-1996 shows that the ship carried 1465.321 MTs of the appellant's cargo which means there was no short landing. It is only t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
