9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Admissibility of Refund Claim filed by the appellant company. Analysis: The appeal was directed against an Order-in-Appeal related to the admissibility of a Refund Claim filed by the appellant company concerning imported mechanical spares. The appellant paid duty on the assessment of the goods, but upon examination, it was discovered that the goods differed from what was declared. The appellants relinquished the title on the goods and expressed no objection to the Customs allowing the foreign supplier to take back the wrongly supplied goods. The goods were never cleared from Customs Control and were not received by the appellants. The Commissioner (Appeals) held that since the goods were not cleared and were exported immediately after importation, the refund would be governed by Section 74 of the Customs Act, 1962. The Commissioner also noted that the appellant company failed to apply for duty drawback as required by law, leading to the rejection of their appeal. The appellant's representative argued that the re-export of goods and drawback claims only apply when goods are released from Customs Control. They contended that the duty was paid before examination, and the goods were sent back by Customs Authorities upon realizing the error made by the foreign supplier. The appellants emphasized that since the goods never left Customs Control, the duty paid should be refunded. They based their refund claim on the fact that the goods were sent back by Customs Authorities, not re-exported by them. During the proceedings, the appellant's representative presented a decision by CEGAT in a similar case. The Revenue's representative reiterated the Commissioner (Appeals) order. After hearing both sides, the Tribunal agreed with the appellants, ruling that Section 74 of the Customs Act was not applicable in this scenario. Since the goods were never under the appellants' control and were sent back by Customs Authorities due to the error of the foreign supplier, the Tribunal found merit in the appellant's submissions. Consequently, the appeal of the appellant company was allowed, granting them consequential reliefs.
|
