RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD. Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, AHMEDABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants imported 19 consignments of various petroleum/petrochemical products such as Para -xylene, Naptha in bulk, EDC at Surat during the period December, 1996 to October, 2000. The bills of entry filed by them were initially assessed provisionally since the bills of entry were filed with provisional price and based on bill of lading quantity. The bills of entry were finally assessed by the proper officer in due course. In respect of 5 bills of entry, the final assessments revealed the excess payment and consequential refund claims have been dealt separately and are not part of the dispute before us. For convenience, the relevant portion to the Table giving details of bills of entry, date of assessment etc. are extracted from the order in original and are given below since the Table facilitates better appreciation of the facts of the case and understanding the problems :

(2.) THE refund claims have arisen because the quantity of imported legal bulk cargo discharged from the vessels was found to be less than the quantities mentioned in the respective bills of lading. It is also found that the quantities discharged and cleared are mentioned on the respective bill of entry but neither the appellants nor the adjudicating authorities have explained as to why the issue relating to the duty on the quantity which was found to have been actually discharged which was less than the bill of lading was not taken into account at the time of finalization in which case, refund claims would have been consequential refunds to finalization of provisional assessments. However the fact remains that the appellants filed refund claims in respect of 19 bills of entry. The refund claims were rejected by the original adjudicating authority and the Commissioner (Appeal) on the following grounds :

(3.) HEARD both sides. The learned Advocate for the appellants argued the case at length and stated that he would make written submissions which were accepted. The learned SDR reiterated the arguments advanced by the adjudicating authority and the appellate authority in their orders.