2013 (11) TMI 946 - AT - Customs

Import of Phosphoric Acid - Goods cleared on payment of duty - Rejection of refund claims filed on the basis of Shore Out Turn Report - Board s Circular No. 6/2006, dated 12-1-2006 - Held that - claimant had paid duty on Ad Valorem basis and the assessment of bulk liquid cargo had also been done on Ad Valorem basis based on Invoice price/quantity by virtue of Customs Circular No. 6/2006 dated 12-1-2006 issued by Ministry of Finance, Deptt. of Revenue, C.B.E. & C., issued from F. No. 467/79/2005-Cus. V, party s refund claim on the basis of shore outturn report is not acceptable in all these appeal petitions. Appellant paid the duty in accordance with the Board s Circular No. 6/2006, dated 12-1-2006, which they have agreed to follow - No reason to interfere with the impugned Orders of the Commissioner (Appeals) which have upheld the Orders-in-Original - Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Refund claims based on Shore Out Turn Report rejected by lower adjudicating authority.
2. Appellant's challenge before the learned Commissioner (Appeals).
3. Applicability of Circular No. 6/2006 issued by the Board.
4. Dispute regarding the assessment of Bulk Liquid Cargo.
5. Compliance with Circular Nos. 96/2002 and 6/2006 by the Appellant.
6. Decision of the Tribunal on the appeals filed by the Appellant.

The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT KOLKATA heard two appeals, C/A/83 & 84/2007, filed by the Appellant against Orders-in-Appeal rejecting their refund claims based on Shore Out Turn Report. The lower adjudicating authority rejected the claims, leading to the appeals before the learned Commissioner (Appeals), who also dismissed them by referring to Board's Circular No. 6/2006. The Appellant imported Phosphoric Acid, paid duty, and later sought refunds. The core issue revolved around the assessment of Bulk Liquid Cargo and the duty payment discrepancy. The Appellant argued compliance with Circular Nos. 96/2002 and 6/2006, emphasizing the duty paid on an Ad Valorem basis. The Tribunal noted the Appellant's agreement to follow the Board's procedures, specifically Circular No. 6/2006, for duty assessment. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision, citing adherence to Circulars and the duty payment method specified therein. Consequently, both appeals were dismissed by the Tribunal based on the Appellant's adherence to the Circulars and the assessment method agreed upon.

---