Short landing of bulk cargo supported refund where evidence showed shortage and custodian certificate was not required.

Short landing of bulk cargo was established through the statement of facts, the steamer agent's certificate and the subsequent weighment certificate, all of which recorded shortage in the quantity landed. Since the cargo was bulk cargo and the port notes did not require a custodian certificate, rejection of the refund claim solely for want of that certificate was unjustified. The evidence placed before customs supported the claim that the goods had not fully landed, and the refund of excess customs duty was therefore allowed with consequential relief.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellants had established short landing of imported bulk cargo so as to claim refund of excess customs duty paid.

Analysis: The refund claim was rejected by the lower authorities on the ground that no custodian certificate was produced. The record showed that the goods were bulk cargo, for which the port notes did not require a custodian certificate. The statement of facts, the annexed certificate of the steamer agent, and the subsequent weighment certificate all recorded shortage in the quantity landed. These documents had been furnished to the customs authorities and there was no action taken against the steamer agent for any false declaration. The evidentiary material therefore supported the appellant's case that short landing had in fact occurred.

Conclusion: The appellants successfully established short landing of goods. Rejection of refund on the ground of absence of a custodian certificate was unjustified, and the refund claim was allowed with consequential relief.

---