2012 (12) TMI 109 - AT - Customs

Refund claim excess payment of duty because of arithmetic mistake - prayer was made to amend the quantity mentioned in the shipping bill in terms of Section 154 of the Customs Act - Held that - Refund claim was time-barred as the provisions of Section 154 was not applicable to a refund claim - Section 154 of the Customs Act which is an enabling power not containing any time limit cannot be used to defeat the specific time limit for claiming the refund of any alleged excess duty paid refund claim rejected

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against order of Commissioner (Appeals) for correction of quantity in Shipping Bill and refund of excess export duty under Section 154 of Customs Act.

Analysis:
The case involved an appeal by the department against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) regarding correction of quantity in a Shipping Bill for export of Iron Ore Fines and refund of excess export duty under Section 154 of the Customs Act. The respondent initially filed a Shipping Bill for export, stating a gross weight of 10500 MT but later claimed that the actual quantity exported was 10100 MT, seeking a refund of excess duty paid. The department contended that the refund claim was time-barred, as Section 154 was not applicable to refund claims. The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the correction of quantity in the Shipping Bill and ordered a refund of excess duty, leading to the department's appeal.

Upon hearing both sides, the Authorized Representative of the respondent argued that the correction of the quantity was justified under Section 154, emphasizing that the refund claim should not be time-barred. The respondent claimed that the alleged clerical mistakes in the Shipping Bill should be corrected, and the refund should be granted accordingly. The respondent disputed the department's assertion of short shipment and maintained that the refund was warranted due to clerical mistakes under Section 154, not subject to the time limit under Section 27 of the Customs Act.

The Tribunal analyzed the provisions of Section 154 of the Customs Act, which allow for correction of clerical errors in decisions or orders. It noted that the respondent sought to correct the quantity in the Shipping Bill, but discrepancies in the quantities mentioned in various documents indicated errors attributable to the importer, not the assessing officer. The Tribunal observed that the respondent's request to correct the quantity was an attempt to circumvent the time limit under Section 27 for refund claims. It concluded that the Commissioner's order to correct the quantity and grant a refund disregarded the prescribed time limit under Section 27, rendering the order unsustainable. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the Commissioner (Appeals) order and allowed the department's appeal.

In summary, the judgment addressed the correction of quantity in a Shipping Bill and the refund of excess export duty under Section 154 of the Customs Act. The Tribunal ruled in favor of the department, emphasizing that the correction sought by the respondent was not merely a clerical error and that the refund claim was time-barred under Section 27, not applicable to Section 154 corrections.