2013 (12) TMI 1457 - AT - Customs

Denial of refund claim - order of assessment not challenged - Held that - Though the appellant had wrongly declared the currency as US in the Bill of Entry, whereas in the import invoice the currency is declared as Singapore . In customs matters, the assessment is done by the Appraising Officer. Therefore, it is an error committed by the Appraising Officer in not taking the correct currency, even though the appellant misdeclared the currency as US in the Bill of Entry. However, this mistake should have been noticed and corrected by the Assessing Officer himself. There is no dispute either about the classification of the goods or about the rate of duty. Thus, it is not a case which comes under the category of assessment required to be challenged . It is an error committed apparently on face of the record. Thus, there is no ground for rejecting the refund claim on account of non-challenging the order of assessment. - Matter remanded back - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Refund claim rejection due to non-challenge of assessment order.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed against the Order-in-Appeal rejecting the refund claim of M/s. Johnson Controls (India) Pvt. Ltd. The lower appellate authority based its rejection on the appellant's failure to challenge the assessment order. The Revenue argued that the appellant mistakenly declared the currency as US $ in the Bill of Entry, leading to duty assessment in excess. The appellant later realized the invoiced currency was in Singapore $. The refund claim was rejected on grounds of unjust enrichment and non-challenge of the assessment order.

Upon review, it was noted that the assessment error stemmed from the Appraising Officer not correcting the currency discrepancy, despite the appellant's misdeclaration. The classification of goods and duty rate were undisputed. The Tribunal concluded that this was not a case requiring a challenge to the assessment order, as the error was apparent on the record. Therefore, the rejection of the refund claim on the basis of non-challenge of assessment order was deemed unjustified.

Considering the circumstances, the Tribunal remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority. The appellant was directed to provide evidence within three months to establish that the refund claim did not fall under unjust enrichment. The adjudicating authority was instructed to issue a fresh order in compliance with the law following the submission of evidence by the appellant. Consequently, the appeal was allowed for remand, providing the appellant with an opportunity to substantiate the refund claim's validity in relation to unjust enrichment.

In summary, the Tribunal's decision centered on the incorrect assessment due to a currency discrepancy, leading to the rejection of the refund claim on unjust enrichment grounds and non-challenge of the assessment order. The remand was granted to allow the appellant to present evidence to refute the unjust enrichment allegation and for the adjudicating authority to reevaluate the matter accordingly.