Duty quantification dispute: unsupported invoice cancellation claim failed against signed clearance records and demand was upheld.

A challenge to duty quantification failed where the appellant claimed that two invoices had been cancelled and the related clearances should be excluded. The departmental records showed clearance of goods, the invoices were signed by the proprietor as authorised signatory, and there was no contemporaneous cancellation record, customer correspondence, or certificate of non-receipt to support the claim. In the absence of credible rebuttal evidence, the documentary evidence of clearance was accepted and the quantified duty demand was upheld. The order confirming the demand was sustained and the appeal was dismissed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant established that two invoices were cancelled and that the corresponding clearances should be excluded while quantifying duty liability.

Analysis: The dispute was confined to quantification of duty. The invoices relied upon by the department showed clearance of goods, were signed by the proprietor as authorised signatory, and did not record any cancellation or non-clearance. No correspondence with customers, cancellation documents, or certificates of non-receipt were produced to support the claim that the invoices had been cancelled. In the absence of evidence rebutting the departmental findings, the challenge to the quantified demand could not be accepted.

Conclusion: The appellant failed to prove that the two invoices were cancelled or that the related clearances were to be excluded. The duty quantification was upheld against the appellant.

Final Conclusion: The order confirming the demand was sustained and the appeal was dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: A party disputing duty quantification must rebut documentary records of clearance with credible evidence; unsupported assertions of cancellation cannot displace signed invoices and departmental findings.

---