ORDER
Shiben K. Dhar, Member (T)
1. This appeal is directed against order in appeal dated 10-3-1988 passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals).
2. The appellants declared the goods imported as pump assembly for I.C.P. engine. The goods were accordingly assessed under heading 8413.30 @ 100% + 40% Adv. + 15% c.v. The appellants paid duty and got the goods released. They subsequently however, filed a refund claim on the ground that the goods were not pump assembly for I.C.P. engine but a hydraulic gear type pump handling liquid classifiable under heading 8413.81 @ 50% + 25% Adv. + 10% c.v. The Asstt. Collector rejected the claim. The Collector (Appeals) upheld the order of Asstt. Collector. Hence this appeal.
3. The appellants were not present when the matter was called. They have requested for decision on merits.
4. Arguing for the respondents, the ld. DR submits that the appellants themselves declared it as pump assembly for ICP engine. Invoice also indicates only as pump assembly. In any case, lower authorities have rightly rejected the claim on the ground that since goods have already been cleared, claim could not be verified.
5. We have heard ld. DR and perused the records. We find that the claim was rejected by lower authorities on the ground that the goods could not be verified since the goods were no longer available for examination. It is seen that even at the time of clearance the appellants had not made any such claim. Once goods are removed from the customs area, such claim obviously could not be verified. Any such claim had to be made before the clearance of goods so that officers could verify the claim with reference to goods. In case of All-India Glass Manufacturers’ Federation v. Collector of Customs as reported in 1991 (55) E.L.T. 5 (SC), the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of goods claimed to be damaged held that damage of goods and consequently their lower price had not been proved to the satisfaction of customs officer before clearance of goods. Since goods were no longer available for examination, having been cleared by the appellants, the refund claim of the appellants has been correctly rejected by the lower authorities.
6. In view of this, we uphold the impugned order and reject the appeal.