2017 (7) TMI 672 - AT - Customs

Reassessment of shipping bill - it is the case of the Revenue that the goods are liable to enhanced duty as loading continued after duty - Held that - It is recorded that the shipping bill which was duly assessed to export duty on 24/2/2011, was merely corrected to have the revised export duty. Such manual correction, which was not based on re-assessment order issued to the respondent, was held to be without authority of law - the basis of recalculation of duty was obtained by the respondent through a RTI application. Such calculation cannot be called as reassessment of shipping bill. Rate of export duty - relevant date for applying the rate of export duty - Held that - The High Court in the case of Prime Mineral Exports Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India 2010 (7) TMI 186 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT examined the relevant date for export of applicable in identical situation and held that the date of let export order permitting loading of goods was relevant to decide the correct rate of duty. The High Court also held that the date on which the actual loading of iron ore was started is totally irrelevant. Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Correct date for applying the rate of export duty
2. Validity of reassessment of duty liability
3. Eligibility for refund claim of excess duty

Analysis:

Issue 1: Correct date for applying the rate of export duty
The appeal revolved around determining the relevant date for the application of export duty on the consignments. The key contention was whether the revised duty rate should apply when goods were not fully loaded. The Tribunal noted that the let export order issued on 25/2/11 was the crucial factor in deciding the correct rate of duty. Referring to legal provisions and relevant case law, the Tribunal emphasized that the date of the let export order, not the commencement of loading, was significant in determining the applicable duty rate. Citing judgments from the Bombay High Court, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision, stating that the impugned order was in accordance with the Customs Act, 1962. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal by the Revenue.

Issue 2: Validity of reassessment of duty liability
The Revenue argued that the duty reassessment was justified due to the duty increase while loading was ongoing. However, the Tribunal found that there was no actual reassessment of the shipping bill. It was observed that the correction made to the assessed duty was not based on a re-assessment order but was a manual correction without legal authority. The Tribunal concurred with the Commissioner's finding that there was no reassessment as per law. The basis for the duty recalculation, obtained through an RTI application, was deemed insufficient to constitute a reassessment of the shipping bill.

Issue 3: Eligibility for refund claim of excess duty
The Respondent had paid additional duty under protest and filed a claim for a refund of the excess amount. The Commissioner allowed the refund claim, stating that the respondent was eligible for it. The Revenue contested this, arguing that the duty paid was correct and proper, with no excess amount due for refund. However, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision, emphasizing that the recalculation of duty did not constitute a reassessment. Therefore, the Tribunal found no grounds to interfere with the Commissioner's ruling on the eligibility for the refund claim.

In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal by the Revenue, affirming the Commissioner's order that there was no reassessment of duty liability and that the refund claim by the Respondent was valid under the law.