2020 (2) TMI 920 - AT - Customs

Customs refund appeal granted due to lack of evidence of goods discrepancy.

The appeal centered on the denial of a refund of Special Additional Duty (SAD) under a customs notification due to a discrepancy in the description of ... Refund of SAD - denial on the ground that the description of the imported goods in Bills of Entry is “Calcium Carbonate Powder” but the same mentioned in the sale invoices as “Mineral Powder - HELD THAT:- It is not the case of the Revenue that either the goods are different or that they are different categories per se, falling under different HSN. No doubt, appellant could have submitted a certificate by an expert in the field in order to facilitate easy appreciation of the issue by the Revenue, but then the adjudicating authority could have questioned the same, invited explanation to his satisfaction, in order to arrive at any conclusion. It is not even his case that the descriptions would bring into existence two different goods, different in all respects nor has the Revenue proved that the Mineral Powder is not a generic term for the goods in question. The Order-in-Original is not even alleging that “Calcium Carbonate Powder” and “Mineral Powder” are different. Even if they are assumed to be different, then, how they are different cannot be a guess work but based on some analysis, which is lacking. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. Issues Involved:Denial of refund of 4% Special Additional Duty (SAD) under Customs Notification No. 102/2007-Cus. dated 14.09.2007 due to discrepancy in the description of imported goods.Analysis:The only issue in this appeal was the denial of refund of SAD under a specific customs notification. The Assistant Commissioner of Customs denied the refund claim, stating it was ineligible due to a discrepancy in the description of the imported goods. The first appellate authority upheld this decision, mentioning a likelihood of a mix-up of goods of different grades, leading to the current appeal.During the hearing, the appellant's representatives argued that the goods imported and sold were essentially the same, falling under the same Chapter Heading despite using a more generic term in the sale invoices. They cited relevant legal precedents to support their case. On the other hand, the Departmental Representative contended that the refund claim lacked specificity and supporting documents, supporting the lower authorities' findings.After considering both sides' arguments and reviewing the impugned order, the Judicial Member found that the Revenue did not claim the goods were different categories or falling under different classifications. There was no evidence to prove that the descriptions indicated different goods, and the Revenue failed to establish that 'Mineral Powder' was not a generic term for the goods in question. The Member emphasized the importance of expert certificates for clarity but noted the lack of analysis or conclusive proof of differentiation between the goods in question.Referring to a High Court decision, the Member highlighted that discrepancies in descriptions, without substantial differences in the goods, should not lead to denial of refunds. The Member concluded that the appellant's appeal was valid, setting aside the impugned order and allowing the appeal with consequential benefits, if any, as per the law.In conclusion, the judgment focused on the discrepancy in the description of imported goods leading to the denial of a refund claim. The analysis emphasized the need for substantial evidence to prove differentiation between goods and highlighted the significance of generic terms in such cases. The decision ultimately favored the appellant, emphasizing the importance of clarity and substantive proof in customs refund cases.