2010 (7) TMI 1005 - AT - Customs

Refund claim - excess customs duty paid - CBEC Circular dt. 10/11/2008 - claim of assessee is that the customs authorities have wrongly assessed the export cargo at higher value and had collected excess export duty based on valuation on FOB value- denial of refund claim on the ground that the shipping bills which were assessed with remarks are provisional and not finally assessed and there is no need to file separate appeal against the order of assessment and it could be corrected under Section 154 of the CA 1962 - scope of section 154 of CA 1962. Held that - the issue is now squarely covered by our decision in the case of M/s. Sameera Trading Company 2010 (5) TMI 518 - CESTAT BANGALORE where it was ditected the assessing officer to reassess the Bill of Entry under Section 17(4) of the Act after allowing the assessee to amend the Bill of Entry under Section 149 of the Act - appeal rejected - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Dispute over provisional assessment of shipping bills and excess export duty paid.
2. Interpretation of legal provisions regarding correction of clerical errors in customs assessments.
3. Applicability of CBEC circular and previous judicial decisions on similar issues.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The appeals involved a dispute regarding the assessment of shipping bills for the export of Iron Ore fines and the payment of excess export duty by the appellants. The customs authorities had assessed the cargo at a higher value, resulting in the collection of excess duty. The appellants filed refund claims based on a CBEC circular, but the adjudicating authority rejected the claims. The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the refund claims, stating that the assessment could be corrected under Section 154 of the Customs Act, 1962. The Revenue contended that the shipping bills were not provisionally assessed, and the duty payment was final since no protest was lodged. The issue revolved around whether the method of assessment could be corrected under Section 154.

2. The Tribunal referred to previous decisions and legal provisions to analyze the issue. It was noted that the assessing officer had erred in computing the duty by considering the FOB value as the transaction value. The Tribunal cited CBEC circulars and judicial precedents to support the appellants' claim for refund. The Tribunal emphasized that Section 154 of the Customs Act allows for the correction of clerical errors or accidental slips in assessments, even without a time limit. Various cases were cited to illustrate that excess duty paid due to assessment errors should be refunded without the need for a separate appeal.

3. The Tribunal considered the submissions of both sides and found that the issue was similar to a previous case where the appeal by the Revenue was rejected. The Tribunal upheld the impugned orders, citing its own decision in a related matter. It concluded that the facts in the current appeals were identical to the previous case, and based on its previous ruling, rejected the appeals filed by the Revenue. The Tribunal emphasized consistency with judicial authorities and legal provisions in rejecting the Revenue's appeal and upholding the refund claims of the appellants.