2017 (9) TMI 254

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... (Technical Member) For the Appellant : Rabeem Jayaram, Advocate For the Respondent : R. Subramaniyan, AC (AR) ORDER The facts of the case are that appellant filed claim dated 12.07.2013 of refund of SAD in terms of Notification No.102/2007-Cus. dated 14.09.2007 in respect of 16 Bills of Entry of total amount of Rs. 48,11,154/-. The claims were filed with the Refunds Section in Chennai....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....of appellant, Ld. Advocate Shri Rabeem Jayaram requested for early hearing and disposal of this appeal in view of the peculiar circumstances of the case. He submits that both Air Cargo Complex Commissionerate and Sea Customs Commissionerate of the Customs Department in Chennai have concurrent jurisdiction. He submits that although they had inadvertently filed the claim with Chennai Sea Customs ins....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....cy memo pointing out the jurisdictional discrepancy, Sea Customs Commissionerate started processing the claim and in fact issued a memo seeking further documents. In case, had the appellant been informed earlier about wrong filing of the claim, he could have very well withdrawn the claim and filed it with Air Cargo Complex. On the other hand, Sea Customs Commissionerate, in fact, transferred the c....