2015 (6) TMI 74 - AT - Customs

Denial of refund claim - Benefit under notification No. 26/2000 - preferential rate of country of origin - Held that - Appellant claiming preferential rate of duty under notification No. 26/2000 for the goods imported for from Srilanka origin ought to have claimed the notification at the time of input and before clearance of goods. The conditions stipulated in the said notification is specific and it is mandatory that the Asst. Commissioner of Customs shall satisfy whether the conditions are met before clearance of the goods. As rightly held by the lower appellate authority once Bill of Entry assessed and duty paid and appellants cleared the goods the assessment becomes final and the appellant did not contest or file appeal against the assessment order. Therefore, in view of Hon ble Apex Court judgment in the case of Priya Blue Industries (2004 (9) TMI 105 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) the appellants are not eligible to claim the notification benefit by way of filing refund. - Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues:
- Claiming country of origin benefit under Notification No. 26/2000
- Requirement to claim notification benefit at the time of importation and before clearance of goods
- Interpretation of conditions under the notification
- Applicability of the judgment in the case of M/s. Priya Blue Industries
- Dismissal of the appeal by lower appellate authority

Analysis:
The case involved a dispute regarding the appellant's claim for a refund of customs duty paid on the import of Zinc Oxide under Notification No. 26/2000-Cus, which provided a preferential rate of duty for goods originating from Srilanka. The Assistant Commissioner rejected the claim as the appellant failed to produce the certificate of the country of origin at the time of clearance of goods. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the rejection on merits.

The Revenue, represented by the Ld. AR, reiterated that the appellant did not claim the country of origin benefit at the time of importation as required by the notification. The conditions specified in the notification, particularly those related to the satisfaction of the Assistant Commissioner of Customs before clearance of goods, were crucial. Citing the judgment in the case of M/s. Priya Blue Industries, the Ld. AR supported the dismissal of the appeal.

Upon careful consideration, the Tribunal noted that the appellant failed to claim the notification benefit at the appropriate time, i.e., before clearance of goods, as mandated by Notification No. 26/2000. The lower appellate authority had extensively discussed this issue and relied on the judgment in the case of M/s. Priya Blue Industries to dismiss the appeal. It was emphasized that the conditions specified in the notification were specific and mandatory, requiring the satisfaction of the Assistant Commissioner of Customs before clearance of goods.

The Tribunal concurred with the lower appellate authority's decision, stating that once the Bill of Entry was assessed, duty paid, and goods cleared without contest or appeal against the assessment order, the appellant could not subsequently claim the notification benefit through a refund. Therefore, based on the precedent set by the judgment in the case of M/s. Priya Blue Industries, the Tribunal upheld the dismissal of the appeal, finding no fault in the impugned order.