TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1988 (12) TMI 219
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hat the filing of additional evidence is to be permitted only if the Tribunal feel that there is a need for it in order to ascertain some essential facts or to cure some inherent defect. It is emphasized that the documents have been obtained after not only the adjudication of the matter but also the disposal of the first appeal and, therefore, they are not admissible. 3. We have seen the documents. We find from these documents that on 10.1.83, appellants addressed a communication to the Ambassador of United States in India, claiming that they had imported stainless steel circles from United States, which were found to be wrong and sub-standard goods, as one drum was completely empty of contents, and, in the case of 19 drums, the contents were steel scraps as against the invoiced description of steel circles. On the same date, i.e. on 10.1.83, a letter was also addressed by the appellants to their suppliers, reminding them with reference to their earlier letter of 4th August, 1981, that the supplies made were not of goods specified. Similarly, also on the same date, i.e. 10.1.83, a letter had been issued in this connection to the Indian Ambassador in the United States. On 9.3.83,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....admission of this additional evidence. 6. Now, coming to the facts of the case, we find that appellants have claimed a refund of duty on stainless steel circles imported by them on the ground that 7818 Kgs. were found actually to be not stainless steel circles but stainless steel scraps. The refund claim was rejected by the Assistant Collector on the ground that the Insurance survey report as regards the nature of the goods was carried out after the goods were out of Customs charge. The quantity and value of the goods claimed to be scrap, was not ascertained before clearance. Nor was any evidence produced by way of confirmation from the supplier as regards the wrong supply. This order was upheld by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), who also added that the Insurance survey report showed that the drums were found with their top lids repaired totally, indicating a possibility of tampering of the consignment prior to the survey and after out of charge. 7. There is no answer to these points on behalf of the appellants. It is not at all, explained as to how the top lids of the drums were got repaired, particularly if there were to be a claim of refund to be lodged with the Custom....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Stainless Steel Circles - 4210.000 kgs. Scrap - 7818.000 kgs. 12. Based on this, the appellants filed a claim for refund of duty stated to have been paid in excess. The refund, however, was rejected and the findings of the Assistant Collector, in this regard, are as under : "As admitted by the claimants, the Insurance Survey Report on the nature of the goods, was carried out after the goods were out of Customs charge. The customs survey report on Duplicate B/E only covers the shortages. The quantity and value of the goods claimed to be scrap, were not ascertained before clearance. No confirmation from the supplier regarding wrong supply and the quantity and value (as scrap) thereof is produced. Therefore the original assessment is in order." 13. The appellants obviously had not produced any evidence at that stage about the wrong supply from the suppliers. The correspondence produced as additional evidence indicated at Sl. Nos. 12 to 18 in Brother, Shri Anand's order, relates only to the issue of the stated wrong supply from the suppliers. It is seen from the documents filed by the appellants that they had addressed a letter, dated 4.8.81 to the suppliers bringing....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....by the suppliers suo motu after the despatch of the goods when the discrepancies in their own stocks are found out by them or by the consignees after the examination of the same on importation. 16. The present case is covered by the later situation. Obviously, after the survey, the appellants entered into correspondence with the suppliers. The nature of the correspondence produced is such that it does not show that any evidence has been sought to be artificially created so far as the fact of the establishing the nature of the goods received is concerned, but that is not to say that it establishes automatically wrong supply. The genuineness and otherwise of their claim, that is, whether there was any wrong supply or not has to be decided by the appreciation of the full evidence on record. 17. The appellants in the present case could not have produced the supplier's letter in the proceedings before the lower authorities as the same obviously was not received by them. 18. In view of the above, I hold that additional documents now filed should be admitted for consideration of their pleas on merits. 19. I now proceed to examine their pleas on merits in the light of their evi....