2015 (10) TMI 958 - HC - Customs

Jurisdiction to grant refund claim of SAD Notification No.102/2007-Cus - whether Assistant Commissioner of Customs House and Air Cargo Complex have concurrent Jurisdiction - revenue contended that the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner alone shall sanction and refund the claim made by the assesses. Held That - Standing Counsel for revenue fairly submitted that the petitioner may be directed to file necessary refund claims before the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner and on receipt of the same, the same shall be considered and to that effect necessary directions may be issued by this Court. Impugned order is set aside and quashed Respondent directed to send original refund application to the Assistant Commissioner of Customs (Airport and Air Cargo) Petitioner permitted to submit a copy of the refund application failing which it is open for the Respondents to pass appropriate orders Decided in favour of the Petitioner.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to order for refund disbursement

Analysis:
The petitioner, a Private Limited Company engaged in the import and local sale of medical equipment, challenged the order of the second respondent dated 06.08.2015, seeking the disbursement of a refund amount of Rs. 3,11,952 with interest. The petitioner imported various goods and paid customs duties, subsequently selling the goods locally and claiming a refund based on a notification. The claim was rejected by the 2nd respondent without providing an opportunity to present their case. The petitioner argued that both the Assistant Commissioner of Customs House and Air Cargo Complex have concurrent jurisdiction, citing a relevant judgment. The petitioner contended that the 2nd respondent should have transferred the files to the office of the Assistant Commissioner of Customs (Refunds) at Air Cargo Complex, Meenambakkam, Chennai. The petitioner sought to quash the impugned order based on the concurrent jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Customs.

The learned Standing Counsel for the respondents argued that as per Notification No.102/2007-Cus., dated 14.09.2007, the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner alone can sanction and refund claims. The Standing Counsel suggested that the petitioner should file necessary refund claims before the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner for consideration. After considering the arguments from both sides and examining the record, the Court set aside the impugned order dated 06.08.2015. The 2nd respondent was directed to forward the original refund application to the Assistant Commissioner of Customs (Airport and Air Cargo). The petitioner was given two weeks to submit a copy of the refund application to the Assistant Commissioner, who was instructed to review the claim and make a decision within four weeks. Failure to comply would allow the respondents to take appropriate action. The writ petition was disposed of with these directions, and no costs were awarded.