2013 (2) TMI 522 - AT - Customs

Recovery by enforcing Bank Guarantee furnished for provisional release of the subject goods - assessee contested to be have taken stay - Held that - Claim of appellant for refund of the excess amount has to be allowed not only as a relief to the appellant but also as a lesson for the department to be circumspect in similar situations without precipitating unsavoury controversies as the department was aware of the stay order passed by this Bench as early as on 12.7.2012 - refund within two weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. The miscellaneous application stands allowed to this extent.

Summary

Issues:
1. Direction to pre-deposit differential duty and penalty
2. Appellant's attempt to comply with the direction
3. Enforcement of Bank Guarantee and recovery of excess amount
4. Delay in refunding the excess amount

Analysis:
1. The judgment involved a direction by the Bench for the appellant to pre-deposit a specific amount towards differential duty and penalty within a stipulated time frame. The appellant approached the Assistant Commissioner with a Demand Draft covering the required amounts, but it was not accepted. The appellant had also informed the Assistant Commissioner in writing about the Tribunal's waiver and stay order subject to partial pre-deposit. Subsequently, a Bank Guarantee furnished by the appellant for provisional release of goods was enforced, leading to the department recovering an amount exceeding the required pre-deposit. The Tribunal expressed dissatisfaction with the excessive recovery made from the appellant, highlighting the department's lack of circumspection in handling the situation.

2. The judgment acknowledged the appellant's compliance with the direction for pre-deposit, despite the rejection of the Demand Draft. The appellant's attempt to adhere to the Tribunal's orders was evident through their communication with the Assistant Commissioner and submission of necessary documents. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of allowing the appellant's miscellaneous application for refund of the excess amount not only as a relief to the appellant but also as a lesson for the department to exercise caution in similar circumstances to avoid unnecessary controversies.

3. The enforcement of the Bank Guarantee and subsequent recovery of an amount exceeding the specified pre-deposit raised concerns regarding the department's responsiveness to the Tribunal's orders. The delay in refunding the excess amount to the appellant was highlighted as an issue requiring immediate resolution. The Tribunal directed the department to refund the excess amount to the appellant within a specific timeframe, emphasizing the need for prompt action to rectify the situation and prevent similar occurrences in the future.

4. In conclusion, the judgment underscored the importance of adherence to Tribunal orders, timely refund of excess amounts, and the need for departments to exercise caution and diligence in handling pre-deposit requirements to avoid unnecessary disputes and ensure fair treatment of appellants. The decision to allow the appellant's application for refund served as a reminder of the significance of procedural compliance and fair treatment in legal proceedings.