2017 (7) TMI 586 - AT - Customs

Entitlement to interest - excess duty paid on finalization of Shipping Bills which were provisionally assessed earlier - the declared price of US 165 PDMT FOB was rejected the same was re-determined at USD 172 PDMT FOB - Held that - Revenue has not filed any appeal against Order-in-Appeal No. 10/2013-VCH dated 17.04.2013 which would mean that the Revenue has accepted the value declared by the appellant in the Shipping Bills as filed. The adjudicating authority cannot again assess the said Shipping Bills, as there are no provisions to do so. It is also surprising that once the re-determined the value of Shipping Bills was set aside it would mean the provisional assessment vide Order-in-Original dated 31.05.2012 was effectively finalised at the price/value declared by the appellant - there was no requirement of finalising the 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 - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

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

Analysis:
The appeal concerned the interest payable to the appellant on the excess duty paid upon finalization of Shipping Bills that were provisionally assessed earlier. The appellant had filed Shipping Bills for the export of Iron Ore to a company in China, declaring a specific value. The Assistant Commissioner provisionally assessed the Shipping Bills pending test results, and upon receiving a favorable test report, the consignment was allowed for export. Subsequently, the value declared by the appellant was re-determined at a higher amount, leading to a refund of excess duty paid by the appellant. The appellant, dissatisfied with this decision, appealed to the First Appellate Authority, which upheld the adjudicating authority's rejection of the finalization of the provisionally assessed Shipping Bills.

The appellant argued that since the Revenue did not appeal against a previous order, the finalization of the Shipping Bills should have been upheld as of the date specified in that order. The appellant contended that there were no provisions for reopening finalised Shipping Bills, and the action taken by the adjudicating authority to finalize the Bills again was incorrect. The appellant also cited Section 18 of the Customs Act, 1962, stating that interest liability arises from the date the Bills were finalized.

Upon reviewing the submissions and records, it was noted that the adjudicating authority had previously enhanced the value of the Bills, which was later set aside by the First Appellate Authority. As the Revenue did not appeal against this decision, it was deemed that the value declared by the appellant in the Shipping Bills was accepted. Therefore, the adjudicating authority had no basis to reassess the Bills. The Tribunal concluded that the finalization of the Bills was effectively done at the price declared by the appellant, and there was no legal requirement to finalize them again. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed, with the appellant being entitled to interest from the date of finalization specified in the previous order.

In summary, the Tribunal found that the finalization of provisionally assessed Shipping Bills at a higher value was unwarranted, as the Bills had effectively been finalized at the value declared by the appellant. The appellant was granted interest on the excess duty paid, in accordance with the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962.