TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2008 (12) TMI 559
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ficer under Rule 29 of the Special Economic Zones Rules, 2006 and transshipment of the consignment was permitted from the Sikka Port for Reliance Special Economic Zone by road; that the said consignment was discharged at Sikka Port and transferred to RSEZ in open trucks/trailers during the period from 29-5-06 to 11-6-06; that no weighment of the consignment was done at Sikka Port as no weighment facility existed there; that the said consignment was transported to RSEZ by trucks/trailers and was examined at the entry gate of RSEZ by Customs officer and allowed entry inside RSEZ during the said period; that it was noticed that, total number of bundles i.e. 10,727 bundles of Weldable Debars as mentioned in the import documents were tallied, wh....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pieces shipped; that in absence of any allegation or evidence of tampering or removal/diversion of any pieces from any of the bundle, there can be no question of any short receipt when all the bundles intact have been received in the SEZ unit; there is no evidence to show that the bundles had been re-bundled or re-packed or were not intact; that there has been no diversion of any portion of the goods while in transit from the Port to the SEZ; that the entire operation of discharge of the goods from the vessel into the barges and subsequent transport to the SEZ had been monitored by the Surveyors, J.C. Gupta & Co. P. Ltd. who by their report dt. 19-6-06 certified that the entire quantify discharged from the vessel has been received in the SE....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er be alleged on the basis of a discrepancy between such theoretical weight and the weight recorded at the SEZ and there was any short receipt; that it is also an accepted normal phenomenon as held in the decisions referred to above that, a minor discrepancy which was only to the extent of 2.45% is attributable to an error/valuation in weighing equipments and carrying out of weighment at two different places; that the Assistant Commissioner has not accepted the international norm of accepting tolerance of variation in the weight within certain limits; that the Purchase Order, Bill of Lading and Packing List themselves indicate that the weight mentioned therein is subject to variation between -3.5% to +5% and since the discrepancy in their c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and the appellants have failed to explain the same, duty is required to be confirmed. He relied upon Tribunal's decision in case of Savita Chemicals v. CCE - 2004 (176) E.L.T. 239 (Tri.-Mumbai) and confirmed the Customs duty on the ground of shortages of the imported goods received at the SEZ unit. 6. We have heard Shri J.C. Patel, Shri V.K. Jain, learned Advocates on behalf of the appellant and also Ms. M.I.J. Micheal, learned Jt. CDR on behalf of the Revenue. 7. As is seen from the impugned order, there is no dispute the bars totally tallied in bundle as well as in numbers. The goods received at the appellant's end were examined by the jurisdictional authority as is clear from the certificate given on the Bill of Entry. As....