2017 (7) TMI 229 - AT - Customs

Liability of interest - Refund of excess duty paid - finalisation of provisionally assessed bill of entry - Held that - the adjudicating authority cannot again assess the said Shipping Bills, as there are no provisions to do so - the Order-in-Original dated 24.07.2014 is not in consonance with law, as there was no requirement of finalising are already finalised the Shipping Bills. The appellant is entitled for interest as per the provisions of Section 18 of the Customs Act, 1962 from the date of finalisation of the Shipping Bills by the First Order-in-Appeal dated 17.04.2013 - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues: Interest payable on excess duty paid on finalization of provisionally assessed Shipping Bills.

Analysis:
1. The appellant filed Shipping Bills for export of Iron Ore declaring the value as USD 165 PDMT FOB to a company in China. The Assistant Commissioner provisionally assessed the Shipping Bills pending test results. The test report confirmed the declared value, but later discrepancies were found in the moisture content declared by the appellant.

2. The lower authorities re-determined the value of the Shipping Bills at USD 172 PDMT FOB, rejecting the appellant's declared value. The appellant appealed against this decision, and the Department later finalized the assessment at the originally declared value of USD 165 PDMT FOB, ordering a refund of excess duty paid by the appellant.

3. The appellant claimed interest from the Department, arguing that the finalization of the Shipping Bills should have been upheld as per a previous order. The appellant contended that there were no provisions for reopening finalised Shipping Bills and that the action of re-finalizing them was incorrect.

4. The appellant's counsel highlighted that the Revenue did not appeal against a specific order, indicating acceptance of the value declared by the appellant in the Shipping Bills. The adjudicating authority was criticized for re-assessing the Shipping Bills without proper legal basis, especially after the value had been set aside and effectively finalized at the declared price.

5. The Tribunal, upon reviewing the submissions and records, concluded that the issue at hand was the interest payable to the appellant on the excess duty paid during the finalization of provisionally assessed Shipping Bills. It was noted that the lower authorities had not correctly interpreted the law and had erred in re-finalizing the Shipping Bills that were already finalized.

6. The Tribunal held that the Order-in-Original re-finalizing the Shipping Bills was not in accordance with the law, as there was no legal requirement to re-finalize bills that were already deemed final. The appellant was deemed entitled to interest as per the Customs Act, 1962, from the date of the initial finalization of the Shipping Bills as per the previous order.

7. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed in favor of the appellant. Interest was to be paid to the appellant as per the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962, from the date of the initial finalization of the Shipping Bills as determined by the First Order-in-Appeal.