Merck Life Science Pvt. Ltd. Vs Chief Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Bangalore)
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Bangalore dismissed an appeal filed against an order rejecting reassessment of a Bill of Entry and consequential refund claim arising from alleged short shipment of imported goods. The appellant had imported goods through Bill of Entry No. 2334134 dated 08.03.2019 and self-assessed customs duty under the Risk Management System (RMS). Based on the invoice and packing list showing 30 units of the imported goods, customs duty amounting to Rs. 54,15,162/- was paid and out-of-charge clearance was granted.
Subsequently, the appellant claimed that there had been short shipment of the imported goods and filed a refund claim under Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962. Customs authorities issued a deficiency letter seeking supporting documents. Thereafter, the appellant sought reassessment or amendment of the Bill of Entry, but the request was rejected by the authorities on 17.06.2022. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the rejection, holding that there was no provision permitting reassessment in the facts of the case after clearance of goods and completion of assessment.
Before the Tribunal, the appellant argued that upon receipt of the goods it discovered short shipment by the supplier and immediately sought reassessment. It contended that Sections 17 and 149 of the Customs Act empowered authorities to reassess or amend the Bill of Entry. The appellant relied on several judicial decisions, including Sony India Pvt. Ltd., SECO Tools India Pvt. Ltd., ITC Ltd., Lava International Ltd., and Shah Nanji Nagsi Exports Pvt. Ltd. It was also argued that an importer should not be deprived of legitimate relief due to omission or delay by employees or customs brokers.
