1. The Revision Application filed before the Govt. of India against the Order-in-Appeal bearing No. S/49-120/81M, dated 6-7-81 passed by the Appellate Collector of Customs statutorily stood transferred to the Tribunal for being heard as an appeal.
2. The appellant's refund claim of duty on shortlanded goods was rejected by the authorities below as unsubstantiated for non-production of documents such as BPT short-landing certificate.
3. In their Revision Application filed on 29th September, 81, among other things the appellants stated that they had already applied for the short-landing certificate to the BPT authorities and that the same will be submitted immediately on receipt. After three long years, Shri Phadkar who appeared for the appellant submitted that the appellants could not get the short-landing certificate and having regard to the period to which it relates it would not be possible to produce the short-landing certificate. He however submitted that before the Asstt.
Collector they had filed two duty bills to establish that the package originally short-landed was over-carried to Mangalore port and later came back. On the basis of duty bills, refund may be ordered.
4. Shri Krishan Kumar for the Respondent Collector however submitted that mere proof of payment of duty twice would not be sufficient though appellants are required to produce at least the correspondence to establish that the very goods had been over-carried and subsequently brought back. No such documents have been' produced.
5. Considered the submissions made on both sides. The appellants who claim refund of duty shall have to satisfy the authority which is empowered to order refund that the package in respect of which duty had been paid and refund was claimed had not landed. The primary evidence to establish short-landing would be the certificate issued by the custodian of the goods. The Bombay Port Trust authority is constituted as custodians of the goods landed in the Customs area. The appellants were aware of this position and that they had undertaken to produce the certificate. They had slept over the matter for a period of three years. However just the claim of the appellants may be, they cannot seek the indulgence of the court for not being diligent in prosecuting their matter. The position this day remained the same in that the appellants have failed to produce the short-landing certificate which would conclusively prove their claim. In the circumstances I see no reason to interfere with the order passed by the authorities below and accordingly I reject this appeal.