2010 (12) TMI 143

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he price was for CIF, Chennai Seaport, but the consignment came by air because of urgency. The purchase order dated 17.1.2003 is at page 15 of the appeal papers. It is the case of the appellants that the supplier in Germany supplied all the three bearings under a single Invoice No. 0038078598 dated 3.7.2003 which indicates a total price of 6350.51 EURO and which tallies with the price indicated on the purchase order. However, the invoice makes adjustments by deducting the sea freight charges and adding the air freight charges as the consignment was actually shipped not by sea but by air. The total price indicated on the invoice which is at pages 20 to 22 of the appeal papers is the adjusted price of 6626.45 EURO. The appellants filed a Bill....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... invoice they have paid duty twice first for three bearings and again for two bearings and they are entitled to refund of proportionate amount paid in excess for two bearings against the first Bill of Entry. The claim of the appellants has been rejected by the authorities below, leading to this appeal. 3. When the appeal was heard earlier on 25.10.2010, the learned counsel for the appellants was directed to obtain and produce a clarification as to how the bearings were shipped separately under two airway bills whereas the invoice was only one and the purchase order was also only one. The appellants have since obtained a clarification from the supplier M/s. FAG inGermanyand submitted the same at the time of hearing today. The clarificatio....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the impugned order and states that since the shortage in the first instance was not noted in the examination report, no refund is permissible. Unfortunately, the examination reports which might have been recorded on the respective Bills of Entry are not available as the matter pertains to the year 2003. Normally no refund should be allowed unless the shortage is recorded in the presence of customs officials and before the out of charge from customs control is given. However, the fact that only one package was imported under the first Bill of Entry in this case is clear from the details furnished in the Bill of Entry itself whereas the accompanying invoice indicated three packages. The claim of the appellants is also supported by all the att....