2010 (9) TMI 1050 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:
The issues involved in the judgment are the refund claim of the respondent, rejection of the refund claim by the Asstt. Commissioner, appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), and the sustainability of the refund claim.

Refund Claim Rejection by Asstt. Commissioner:
The respondent imported moulds and filed a bill of entry, which was assessed on the same day. Subsequently, the goods were found short landed during examination by Customs Authorities. The refund claim was filed by the respondent for the amount paid as per the assessment and duty deposited. The Asstt. Commissioner rejected the refund claim citing lack of documents to verify unjust enrichment and being time-barred. The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the refund claim, stating that in cases of short landing, the extra amount paid becomes a deposit, not duty, hence not subject to limitation or unjust enrichment. The revenue appealed against this decision.

Arguments of Revenue and Respondent:
The Revenue argued that the assessment was not challenged, the refund claim was filed beyond six months, and required documents were not submitted. Therefore, the refund claim should be rejected. On the other hand, the respondent contended that no assessment was done after examination, and duty paid on short landed goods is considered a deposit, not duty, hence not subject to limitation or unjust enrichment.

Decision and Analysis:
After examining the submissions, it was found that the assessment was done at the time of import, and duty was paid accordingly. As per Section 17(4) of the Customs Act, if discrepancies are found post-assessment, goods can be re-assessed. Since no re-assessment was done after detecting the shortage, the amount deposited was considered a deposit, not duty. Previous Tribunal decisions supported this interpretation. Therefore, the refund claim was deemed legally available to the respondent, and the appeal was rejected.