TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Importers win appeal for refund on short-shipped items</h1> <h3>MAIHAR CEMENT Versus COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, BOMBAY</h3> MAIHAR CEMENT Versus COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, BOMBAY - 2000 (123) E.L.T. 545 (Tribunal) Issues:1. Rejection of refund claim for short-shipped items by Asstt. Collector and subsequent appeals.2. Discrepancies in documentation and evidence provided by the importers.3. Arguments regarding the nature of the imported goods and the challenges in detecting short shipments.4. Disagreement between parties regarding the short-shipped items and replacements.5. Examination of the evidence by the authorities and the burden of proof on the importers.6. Consideration of factors favoring the importers' refund claim, including supplier confirmation and Chartered Engineer's certificate.Analysis:The case involves an appeal against the rejection of a refund claim for short-shipped items imported by the appellants. Initially, the Asstt. Collector rejected the claim due to insufficient documentation, including the absence of Bank Credit note and Suppliers' confirmation. The Collector (Appeals) remanded the case for further consideration, emphasizing the need for substantiating the claim. However, subsequent attempts by the importers to support their claim were also rejected based on discrepancies in the evidence provided.The importers argued that the nature of the imported complete plant made it challenging to detect the shortages immediately. They revised their claim based on a Chartered Engineer's certificate confirming short shipment of 7 items, although only 3 items were shipped by the suppliers. The importers highlighted the efforts made to rectify the errors in documentation and the ongoing pursuit of the missing items from the suppliers.On the other hand, the Respondent contended that the evidence presented did not meet the required standards for accepting the short shipment claim. The discrepancies in the documentation, including the invoice mentioning free replacement during the warranty period and inclusion of items not listed as short-shipped, were emphasized to support the authorities' decision.After considering the arguments from both sides, the Tribunal acknowledged the challenges in detecting short shipments in complex machinery imports. Despite the delays and discrepancies, the Tribunal found merit in the importers' claim, particularly regarding the 3 short-shipped items supported by supplier confirmation and the Chartered Engineer's certificate. The Tribunal emphasized the legal principle against charging duty twice on the same item and granted the importers the benefit of a refund for the three identified short-shipped items.Ultimately, the appeal was disposed of in favor of the importers, extending the benefit of the refund for the three short-shipped items, subject to the original claim being within the time limit.
TaxTMI 