2009 (2) TMI 182 - AT - Customs

Import production of additional evidence the authority rejected their claim finding that the importer had not established that the excess duty paid had not been recovered from the buyers of the imported goods held that - the additional evidence produced before the Commissioner (Appeals) was not admitted. He found that such evidence could not be admitted in terms of Rule 5 of Customs (Appeals) Rules, 1982 - appellants were specifically told that a certificate from the Chartered Accountant would meet the requirement provided it was certified that the Impugned amount was recorded in their books of accounts/balance sheet as Receivables from Customs. Other certificates from the Chartered Accountant could also be produced in different circumstances to substantiate the claim that the amount involved had not been passed on to their buyers/customers. At no stage during the proceedings, the appellants claimed that their financial records had shown the amount claimed as Receivables from Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Refund claim of excess customs duty paid.
2. Admissibility of additional evidence before the Commissioner (Appeals).
3. Interpretation of Customs (Appeals) Rules, 1982.
4. Consideration of Chartered Accountant's certificate in refund claims.
5. Comparison with relevant case laws.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Refund claim of excess customs duty paid
M/s. Sheth Impex imported medical equipment and cleared it at a higher customs duty rate. Upon realizing the error, they sought a refund of the excess amount paid. The Assistant Commissioner of Customs (Refunds) rejected their claim, stating that the importer failed to prove that the excess duty was not recovered from the buyers. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this decision, leading to the appeal challenging this order.

Issue 2: Admissibility of additional evidence
The appellants presented a fresh Chartered Accountant's certificate before the Commissioner (Appeals), seeking a remand to re-examine their claim based on this new evidence. However, the Commissioner declined, citing Customs (Appeals) Rules, 1982, which do not allow admission of fresh evidence at the appeal stage.

Issue 3: Interpretation of Customs (Appeals) Rules, 1982
The Tribunal analyzed the Rules and previous judgments to determine the admissibility of additional evidence. Relying on precedents, the Commissioner (Appeals) correctly applied Rule 5 of the Rules, leading to the rejection of the new Chartered Accountant's certificate.

Issue 4: Consideration of Chartered Accountant's certificate
The Tribunal compared the case at hand with relevant precedents like Shree Ram Industries and TITAN Industries Ltd. In the present case, the appellants failed to demonstrate in their financial records that the duty amount was recorded as "Receivables" from Customs, as required for refund claims without unjust enrichment. Thus, the Chartered Accountant's certificate was not deemed sufficient to support their claim.

Issue 5: Comparison with case laws
The Tribunal considered the arguments based on case laws like Commissioner of Customs, Mangalore v. Lamina Foundries Ltd. and TITAN Industries Ltd. v. CC Bangalore. While acknowledging the principles discussed in these cases, the Tribunal found that the facts and evidence presented by the appellants did not align with the requirements set forth in those precedents, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, upholding the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) based on the inadmissibility of new evidence and the failure to meet the necessary criteria for refund claims as per Customs rules and established case law principles.