SWARAJ MAZDA LIMITED Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE question for consideration before us in this appeal is the eligibility to refund of customs duty paid by the appellant on the importation of four consignments.

(2.) THE claims are on two different counts. Rs. 2,60,125 was claimed as refund of duty paid on bill of entry dated 5.3.1990 rotation No. 107, Line No. II (referred to either as bill of entry No. E -1308 or 1338) filed for the goods carried on vessel 'State of Nagaland'. The refund claim was filed on the importer contending that excess freight was paid by mistake to the carrier. The freight bill amended by the carrier M/s. Shipping Corporation of India showing the lower freight of Rs. 13,077 was produced. The claim has been rejected on the ground that worthwhile evidence of actual freight was not produced. We are unable to accept this reason. The certification by the carrier of the goods by way of amendment to the freight bill showing the actual freight paid would itself, in our view, constitute sufficient evidence of freight. After all it is on the freight bill as issued by the carrier that the Custom House relies upon as evidence for the purpose of assessment. Rejection of the claim on this score cannot be upheld.

(3.) THE other three claims related to imported goods found short during examination. The examination report for the consignment of 25 cases covered by the bill of entry 5908 dated 23.12.1990 shows that two cases were completely empty. The report for bill of entry number 5402 dated 5.9.1990 shows that one case covered by the bill of entry was broken and are only 512 pieces of the contents of instead 800. The examination of goods covered by bill of entry 5065 dated 5.10.1990 shows that the quantity of goods found short, with their description, has been indicated in the examination report.