2013 (11) TMI 88 - AT - Customs

Refund claim - abatement of duty on damaged or deteriorated goods - section 22(1) - Goods were imported and duty paid as per value assessed - Later on goods found to defective - ascertaining value of damanage - Held that - Law provides that duty shall be charged on a proportionate basis - only option available is ascertainment by the proper officer, which the proper officer did not do. Subsequently the goods were exported by the appellant for repairs abroad and brought back and the lower appellate authority held that the repaid charges cost of transportation to and fro including insurance can be considered as extent of damage and accordingly, he allowed the refund of the duty paid on the repair charges freight charges. The ascertainment of damage has been done after the repairs were undertaken as equal to the cost of repair charges. Therefore, there is nothing wrong or unreasonable in the findings of the lower appellate authority. So long as Revenue has received the duty on the full value without any abatement towards damage, the Revenue cannot have any cause for grievance - Decided against Revenue.

Issues Involved:
1. Refund claim for duty paid on damaged goods.
2. Interpretation of Section 22 of the Customs Act regarding abatement of duty on damaged goods.
3. Assessment of duty on repaired goods.

Analysis:

1. Refund claim for duty paid on damaged goods:
The case involves a refund claim by the appellant for duty paid on damaged goods. The respondent imported machinery, which was later found to be in a damaged condition. The appellant filed a refund claim under Section 27 & 22 of the Customs Act, 1962. However, as the extent of damage could not be ascertained initially, no refund was granted. Subsequently, the damaged goods were sent for repair to Germany and re-imported, with duty paid on the repair and freight charges. The lower appellate authority allowed the refund claim, stating that duty had been paid twice on the same goods, and the original assessment should have been based on the repair and freight charges. The Revenue challenged this decision, leading to the appeal.

2. Interpretation of Section 22 of the Customs Act regarding abatement of duty on damaged goods:
The Revenue contended that Section 22(3) of the Customs Act provides methods for ascertaining the value of damaged goods, and if the value cannot be determined using those methods, no abatement towards damage should be allowed. However, the Tribunal noted that Section 22(1) provides for abatement of duty on damaged goods, with Section 22(2) stating that duty should be charged proportionately based on the value of the damaged goods compared to the undamaged goods. The Tribunal highlighted that Section 22(3) allows for ascertaining the value of damaged goods either by the proper officer or through sale, but in this case, the proper officer did not ascertain the value. The lower appellate authority considered the repair charges and freight charges as the extent of damage, leading to the refund approval.

3. Assessment of duty on repaired goods:
The Tribunal emphasized that the lower appellate authority's decision to consider the repair charges and freight charges as the extent of damage was reasonable. The ascertainment of damage was done post-repairs, equating the damage to the cost of repair charges. Since the Revenue had received duty on the full value without any abatement towards damage, the Tribunal found no merit in the Revenue's appeal. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the lower appellate authority's decision to allow the refund claim.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the lower appellate authority's decision to grant the refund claim, emphasizing the proper interpretation of Section 22 of the Customs Act and the reasonable assessment of duty on the repaired goods based on the repair and freight charges.

← Previous Next →