Customs duty assessment on invoiced quantity prevailed where inland warehousing short receipts were unexplained and refund was denied.

Customs duty on imported bulk liquid cargo was held to attach to the goods imported at the place of import, and the invoiced quantity was treated as the proper basis for assessment where transit short-landing was not satisfactorily explained. Because the quantities shown in the invoices and the quantities received into the inland bonded warehouse did not show a consistent pattern of loss, and payment to the foreign supplier was made on the invoice quantity, the claim to limit duty to the quantity actually warehoused was rejected. The Board circular was read as distinguishing shore tank discharge under customs control from this situation. The refund applications were therefore not maintainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether customs duty was payable and refund admissible on the basis of the quantity actually warehoused at the inland bonded warehouse, instead of the invoice quantity shown at the time of import.

Analysis: The imported bulk liquid cargo was transported by road after import and the quantities shown in the invoices and the quantities received into bond at Hyderabad showed no consistent pattern of loss during transit. The appellant gave no satisfactory explanation for the varying short receipts, and payment to the foreign supplier was made on the invoice quantity. The levy of customs duty was held to attach to the goods imported at the place of import, and the Board circular was read as distinguishing such a situation from cases of shore tank discharge under customs control where the quantity actually received could be relevant. On these facts, the invoiced quantity was treated as the more reliable basis for assessment.

Conclusion: The claim that duty should be confined to the quantity actually warehoused was rejected, and the refund applications were not maintainable.

---