2016 (6) TMI 392 - AT - Customs

Refund claim - Custom duty and interest paid towards bill of entry which was showing pending since 2007 - Rejected on account of non submission of documents - Import of 200 pcs of 1GB DDR 2 SD RAM Modules - Goods not cleared as per statement therefore re-called back by the supplier - Held that - though no evidence was produced regarding the export of the goods but at the same time it is clearly observed by the lower authority in the impugned order the goods have not been delivered to the appellant i.e. after payment of duty in 2003 against bill of entry, out of charge order was not given. This clearly shows that irrespective of the position of re-export the fact is not under dispute that the goods in respect of which custom duty and interest was paid has not been delivered to the appellant. If the bill of entry has been filed and the custom duty has been paid then custom department should deliver the goods to the importer and in such case no refund shall arise. However in the present case, it has been informed by the assessment group of Customs that no out of charge was given to the said bill of entry and it also informed that no re-export permission was given to the importer, therefore either delivery of the goods should be given to the appellant and if department is failed to give delivery of the goods by not giving out of charge then appellant shall be entitle for the refund of the duty and interest paid by them. I therefore direct the Adjudicating authority either to give out of charge order and deliver the goods to the appellant or if it is not possible, refund should be granted to the appellant in accordance with the law. - Appeal allowed by way of remand

Summary

Issues: Refund claim for custom duty and interest paid on imported goods; Rejection of claim due to lack of documentary evidence; Dispute over delivery of goods to the importer.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed against the Order-in-Appeal upholding the rejection of the refund claim for custom duty and interest paid on imported goods. The appellant imported goods which were later re-called by the supplier, and the value of the goods was returned to the appellant. Despite this, the appellant paid the custom duty amounting to ?1,83,723 by mistake and oversight. The refund claim was rejected due to the non-submission of necessary documents, including proof of export of the goods. The appellant argued that the goods were re-exported as confirmed by the foreign supplier, but lacked evidence to support this claim.

The Assistant Commissioner representing the Revenue reiterated that the claim was rightly rejected due to the absence of documentary evidence, specifically proof of export of the goods. Both lower authorities had rejected the claim on this basis, and it was argued that the order did not warrant any interference. The appellant's counsel contended that the duty was paid inadvertently, as the goods were re-exported, and the value of the goods was returned by the foreign supplier. However, the lack of concrete evidence to support the re-export claim posed a challenge.

The Tribunal noted that while no evidence was presented regarding the export of the goods, it was evident that the goods had not been delivered to the appellant after the duty payment in 2007. The absence of an out-of-charge order indicated that the goods had not been handed over to the importer. The Tribunal emphasized that if duty was paid and a bill of entry filed, the customs department should deliver the goods to the importer. Since this did not occur, the Tribunal directed the Adjudicating authority to either release the goods to the appellant or grant a refund if delivery was not feasible. The appeal was allowed by way of remand for further proceedings in accordance with the law.

In conclusion, the judgment addressed the crucial issues of refund claim rejection due to lack of documentary evidence and the non-delivery of goods to the importer. It emphasized the importance of proper customs procedures and the entitlement of importers to refunds in cases where goods are not delivered despite duty payment.