1988 (3) TMI 335 - AT - Customs

Customs Duty Refund Appeal Dismissed Due to Goods Description Discrepancies

NICCO ORISSA LTD. Versus COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

NICCO ORISSA LTD. Versus COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS - 1989 (42) E.L.T. 591 (Tribunal) Issues:- Classification of imported goods for duty assessment- Claim for refund based on a customs notification- Rejection of claim by Assistant Collector and Collector of Customs (Appeals)- Lack of conformity between goods description in Bill of Entry and notification- Failure to provide evidence to substantiate claimClassification of Imported Goods for Duty Assessment:The case involved the appellants importing goods described as cross-linked polythene compound and assessed at a 40% auxiliary duty. The Assistant Collector rejected the claim for a duty refund based on the goods being classified as semi-conductive compound, not falling under the exempted category in the relevant notification.Claim for Refund Based on a Customs Notification:The appellants claimed a refund based on Notification No. 67-Cus., dated 1.3.1984, which exempted goods described as low or medium density polythene moulding powder/granules. However, the Assistant Collector rejected the claim due to a lack of conformity between the goods description in the Bill of Entry and the notification.Rejection of Claim by Assistant Collector and Collector of Customs (Appeals):The Assistant Collector and the Collector of Customs (Appeals) both upheld the rejection of the claim for a refund. They emphasized the failure of the appellants to provide evidence supporting their claim and the discrepancy between the goods description in the Bill of Entry and the notification.Lack of Conformity Between Goods Description in Bill of Entry and Notification:The authorities noted that the goods description in the Bill of Entry did not align with the exempted goods under the relevant notification. They highlighted the importance of accurate descriptions and the lack of evidence provided by the importer to establish conformity.Failure to Provide Evidence to Substantiate Claim:The appellants failed to provide conclusive evidence to substantiate their claim that the imported goods were identical to those covered by other Bills of Entry benefiting from the notification. The Tribunal emphasized the necessity of substantiating claims with proper evidence and documentation.The Tribunal, after hearing submissions from both sides, upheld the decisions of the lower authorities. They dismissed the appeal, citing the lack of conformity between the goods description in the Bill of Entry and the notification, the failure to provide sufficient evidence to support the claim, and the inability to verify the contentions after the goods had cleared Customs control. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of accurate descriptions and proper substantiation of claims in customs matters.