1991 (4) TMI 228

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ow. 3. The appellants, a Public Sector Undertaking, imported a consignment consisting of two boxes of various components. They paid the duty on the entire invoice value under Bill of Entry Cash No. 132 dated 30-6-1984. However, when the goods were examined, the concerned Appraiser of the Customs Department, he found only one box and the other box was not available for examination. He however held that the contents of both the boxes were packed in one box and gave examination report on that basis. The Bill of Entry was amended and also the IGM entry was amended and the goods were cleared. However, the appellants noticed that 4 items had not been received by them and they corresponded with the suppliers, who confirmed that all the items ha....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ntry Cash No. C/132 dated 30-6-1984. The appellants only woke up to the shortages in February 1986 and hence though the goods have suffered duty twice, the claim is barred by limitation as stipulated under Sec. 27 of the Customs Act. The present appeal is against the aforesaid order. 4. After hearing both the sides, we find that the undisputed facts are that the consignment originally was manifested for two boxes and one of the boxes only was produced for examination. The Appraiser seems to have concluded that the contents of both the packages have been packed in one box and made an endorsement to that effect. Even though he has mentioned that the item 30 of the Invoice was missing, it was found to be very much in tact and no claim is ma....