Short-shipment evidence cannot be dismissed on semantics when import documents and supplier confirmation consistently support the claim.

Customs authorities cannot reject a short-shipment explanation on a purely technical or semantic objection where contemporaneous import documents support the declared lower quantity and the foreign supplier confirms the short consignment. The airway bill and bill of entry reflected the lower weight, the importer promptly alerted the department, and the supplier issued a fresh invoice confirming the shortage. On that basis, the duty demand and penalty were held unsustainable, and the appeal was allowed.

---

---

Issues: Whether duty and penalty could be sustained when the imported goods were claimed to have been short-shipped and the foreign supplier confirmed the short consignment by issuing a fresh invoice.

Analysis: The goods were cleared on the basis of the airway bill and bill of entry, both reflecting the lower weight. The appellant promptly informed the department on noticing the discrepancy and obtained confirmation from the foreign supplier that the original consignment had been short-shipped due to an accident at the freight forwarder's premises. The rejection of the fresh invoice on the ground that it used the words "short received" instead of "short shipped" was found to be unduly technical. Where the supplier accepted the short consignment and the contemporaneous import documents supported the appellant's stand, the customs authorities were not justified in disregarding the explanation on a mere semantic objection.

Conclusion: The duty demand and penalty were not sustainable, and the appeal was allowed.

Ratio Decidendi: Substantive evidence of short shipment cannot be rejected on a purely technical or semantic objection when the import documents and the supplier's confirmation consistently support the claim.

---