2012 (12) TMI 109

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....f the shipping Bill the quantity mentioned was 10271 MT. The value mentioned in the shipping bill was Rs. 2,78,43,551.19 and the export duty was assessed at Rs. 20,62,485/- and the same was paid on 24-11-2008. Let export orders were given on two dates i.e. on 24-11-2008 for a quantity of 3000 MT and on 25-11-2008 for a further quantity of 7271 MT. Accordingly the export was completed. 3.2 Vide letter dated 17-9-2009 which was received by the department on 23-9-2009, it was claimed by the respondent that the quantity exported was 10,100 MT only and the duty payable was only Rs. 18,88,884/- and that there was excess payment to the extent of Rs. 1,73,601/-. Such excess payment was being on account arithmetical mistake in calculation of d....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... receipt dated 25-11-2008 and Master's certificate dated 25-11-2008 and in the light of correct quantity having been mentioned in page one of the shipping bill. He also submitted that in the given circumstances, the refund was due consequent to amendment of clerical mistakes under Section 154 and therefore time-bar under Section 27 could not be applied. 6.1 I have carefully considered the submissions from both sides and perused the records. The respondent sought for correction of the quantity in certain portions of the Shipping Bill in terms of Section 154. It would be appropriate to reproduce the said section which reads as under :- "Correction of clerical errors, etc. - Clerical or arithmetical mistakes in any decision or order pas....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he shipping bill. All these entries could not be considered as clerical or arithmetical mistakes. These mistakes are attributable to the importer and not to the assessing officer. The appellant has not chosen to ask for correction of mistakes committed by them. The claimed discrepancy was brought to the notice only belatedly vide the respondent's letter dated 17-9-2009. No change in price as per invoice produced before the customs authority indicating the value of Rs. 2,73,79,989/- was sought for. The bank realization certificate dated 11-5-2011, a document which has come into existence much later in point of time has been now produced before me and the same cannot be the basis for correcting the invoice price submitted to the customs autho....