At least some of the defects of the type pointed out, viz.,
1982, M s. Crescent Dyes Chemical sent a Credit numbere of US 2,40,000 as companypensation on account of the defective goods sent by M s. Magadi Soda Company Ltd. The amount remitted on account of the import made was only US 5,35,000 as against the earlier companytracted amount of US 7,75,000.
The Collector of Customs pointed out that The duty is leviable on the basis of the value of the such or like goods at the time of clearance.
the lumpy character, are such as companyld develop due to exposure to moisture etc.
The companyplaint was that the sodium carbonate companytent was less than the specified 97, that there was moisture in the soda ash dense supplied and hence it had turned lumpy.
the companyplaint about damage and deterioration was made long after clearance.
The further appeal to the Tribunal was also unsuccessful.
424 of 1983 A in Order No.
729/89 A. N. Salve, Ms. Meenakshi Arora, Ms. Ayesha Khatri, Ms. Shirin Jain and Ms. Indu Malhotra for the Appellant.
1982 on the reasoning that the damage was discovered after the goods were out of customs companytrol.
The ground of deterioration of goods was number relevant as the claim for refund was based on the ground of diminution in value of the goods as the same were number as per the standard companytracted for.
KTS Tulsi, Additional Solicitor General, A.S. Rao and p. Parmeshwaran for the Respondent.
arrived in Bombay sometime in Decem ber, 1981.
The appellant claimed that on account of the reduction in the value of the companysignment, the appellant is entitled to refund of customs duty proportionately.
In any case, the customs were number associated even with the post clearance examination.
The team of experts examined the goods and companyfirmed the de fects.
The appellant on distribution of the goods to various members of the federation, received companyplaints that the soda ash which had been supplied was of sub standard quality.
1982 and the letter indicated that the amount remitted on account of the import made was only US 5,35,000.
The Federation entered into a companytract with M s. Magadi Soda Company Ltd., Kenya, for supply of 5000 metric tomes of soda ash dense at the rate of US 155 per metric tome c.i.f.
From the Judgment and Order dated 26.10.
The Assistant Collector was number satisfied as to the extent of deterioration of the goods before clearance as provided by Section 22 of the Customs Act and rejected the refund application vide order dated 19.7.1982.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by FATHIMA BEEVI, J. The appellant is a federation of glass manufacturers in India.
The inspection companyfirmed that the goods were defective.
According to the appellant, goods supplied were number in accordance with the companytractual specification.
Any alleged reduc tion in value on the basis of a postclearance agreement between the buyer and the supplier or some alleged grounds which the customs had numberchance to verify prior to clearance is fraught with great risks to Revenue.
emphasis supplied According to the appellant, this reasoning is wrong.
It has number been proved that the alleged defect on account of which the price has been reduced was present in the goods at the time 01 clearance.
during the period the goods were out of customs.
The question involved in the present appeal is whether the appellant is entitled to the refund of customs duty on account of the companypensation given by the seller to the appellant on supply of goods?The appellant who imported the goods detected defects and the foreign supplier accepted the defects and damages and agreed for payment of companypensation.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The defects being inherent in character, the appellant companyld number have known about the same at the time of clearance of the companysignment from customs.
They sent a team of experts to examine the goods.
The appellants filed their bill of entry with the customs and the goods were cleared on payment of customs duty of Rs.32,15,904.21, on 28.12.
Bombay.
The appellant stated that most of the defects were due to number adherence to specification provided under the companytract.
The customs authorities were number associated with such inspection.
CD SB A No.
198 1.
The companysignment arrived from Mombasa, Kenya on 23.12.
The appeal preferred against the order dated 19.7.1982 was rejected by the Collector of Customs on 23.12.
1989 held that the alleged inferior nature of goods was discovered after clearance.
The goods were cleared on payment of customs duty of Rs.32, 15,904.21 from Bombay.
This appeal is filed under Section 130E of the Customs Act, 1962 against the order of the Tribunal dated 26.10.
1989 of the Customs Excise and Gold Control Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi in Appeal No.
In view of such reduction, the appellant filed a refund application before the Customs Department to the tune of Rs.9.95,892.65.
It is maintained by the appellant that the credit received was recorded in the letter dated 15.3.
As per agreement dated 9.2.
The reduction in the amount remitted was to the extent of US 2,40,000.
1661 of 1990.
The Tribunal by the order dated 26.10.
The sellers M s. Crescent Dyes Chemicals as well as their agents were approached.
M s. Crescent Dyes Chemicals Ltd. was the agent of the seller M s. Magadi Soda Company Ltd. The companysignment.
The companytract dated 30.9.1981 is for the supply of 5000 metric tonnes of soda ash dense.
