2015 (5) TMI 51 - AT - Customs

Denial of refund claim - unit FOB value of the subject goods was mentioned as USD 16. 00 per piece as against the FOB price of USD 0.01 per piece - Non production of relevant documents - bill of entries were only provisionally assessed and are still pending before the department - Held that - As admitted by the appellant, these two subject bill of entries which were provisionally assessed not yet finalized so far. As such, they could not furnish the bill of entry before the assessing authority and also the appeal was pending before this Tribunal. Except for producing copy of the Certificate of Foreign Inward Remittances, the appellant failed to produce any other evidences in support of their claim for erroneous pricing of Screw Tapping of parts no.935605602000 of Invoice No.KDB-86817 - 4000 pieces - was mentioned as USD 16. 00 per piece as against the FOB price of USD 0.01 per piece. The appellant could not produce any documents to show that the price of Screw Tapping is Re.0.015. Therefore, considering all the above facts and also considering the fact of provisional assessment is not yet finalized, the appellant's claim for refund is premature - Decided against assessee.

Issues:
1. Appeal against impugned order dated 30.09.2004 regarding refund claims.
2. Dismissal of appeal by learned Commissioner (Appeals) on grounds of prematurity and maintainability.
3. Provisional assessment of imported goods and pending finalization under Section 18 of the Customs Act, 1962.
4. Rejection of refund claims by Assistant Commissioner (Refunds) and Deputy Commissioner of Customs.
5. Submission of documents and evidences to substantiate refund claims.
6. Appellant's contention of erroneous pricing and subsequent refund by supplier.
7. Applicability of Apex court judgments in similar cases.
8. Lack of finalized assessment and pending appeal before the Tribunal.

Analysis:
The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT CHENNAI pertains to refund claims filed by the appellant against two bills of entry for imported Screw Tapping, provisionally assessed under Section 18 of the Customs Act, 1962. The appellant, a manufacturer of automobiles, imported these goods from a related party pending finalization by the Special Valuation Branch (SVB). The refund claims were rejected by the Deputy Commissioner of Customs due to lack of substantiating documents despite multiple opportunities provided. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeal citing prematurity and maintainability issues, in line with the decision in the case of M/s. Priya Blue Industries Ltd.

During the proceedings, the appellant argued that the unit price discrepancy in the invoices was rectified by the supplier through foreign remittances after clearance of goods. The appellant's advocate contended that all bills of entry, except the two in question, had been finalized by the department, and the appellant had accepted the transaction value. However, the authorized representative for the respondent reiterated the impugned order's validity, emphasizing the lack of submission of relevant documents by the appellant before the Adjudicating authority.

Upon careful consideration, the Appellate Tribunal observed that the appellant failed to provide substantial evidence to support their claim for erroneous pricing of Screw Tapping. Despite producing the Certificate of Foreign Inward Remittances, the appellant could not furnish sufficient documentation to establish the correct pricing. The Tribunal noted that the provisional assessment of the two bills of entry remained pending finalization, rendering the appellant's refund claim premature. Consequently, the lower appellate authority's decision to dismiss the appeal was upheld based on the lack of finalized assessment and the pending appeal before the Tribunal.

In conclusion, the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT CHENNAI upheld the dismissal of the appeal, emphasizing the premature nature of the refund claim due to the provisional assessment status of the imported goods and the appellant's failure to provide adequate supporting documents. The judgment highlighted the importance of substantiating refund claims with appropriate evidence and reiterated the legal principles governing such cases, as established in prior court decisions.

← Previous Next →