Order date – 23 June 2022

Facts:

• Appellant-importer, M/s Technova Imaging Systems Pvt. Ltd., had filed application for refund of Special Additional Duty (SAD) @4% in pursuance of Notification No. 102/2007 against 28 Bills of entry for an amount of Rs.24,87,171/- 
• The authorities sanctioned the refund against 22 Bills of entry but rejected against 6 Bills of entry amounting to Rs.10,53,922/- on the ground that those 6 Bills of entry not tallying with the sale invoices.
• Hence, the appellant filed an appeal against the same.

Issue:

• Whether the Appellant is liable for remaining amount against the rejected 6 bills of entry?

Order:

• The Tribunal observed that goods imported and sold, though are of different brand names are one and same which is verifiable from the item code and item description and such infraction of procedural technically cannot defeat the very object and purpose of Notification No. 102/2007.
• Relying on the case of Johnson Lifts Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Customs (Refund), Chennai the authorities held that department is bound to accept the description of goods in the import documents as well as sale invoice to be one and the same, on the strength of the certificate/correlation statement issued by the Statutory Auditor (Chartered Accountant), which in this case was provided by the appellant.
• Hence, the appeal was allowed and order was set aside.