2018 (2) TMI 853 - HC - Customs

Interest u/s 27(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 - Iranian National - Baggage Rules - foreign currency - Smuggling - section 27 and 27(a) of the CA - Held that - any person claiming refund of any duty or interest paid by him or borne by him may make an application in such form as may be prescribed for such refund to the named authority before the expiry of one year from the date of payment of such duty or interest. How that application should be made, what it should accompany and later on how it is to be dealt with, is set out in sub-section (2) of Section 27 of the Act - Section 27A sets out the obligation on delayed refund. That opens with the words if any duty ordered to be refunded under sub-section (2) of Section 27 to an applicant is not refunded . Merely because such a refund application has been considered on the basis that the power to confiscate and impose redemption fine and penalty would include within its purview a power to grant the refund of the excess amount, still for such delayed refund interest cannot be granted or awarded, absent a specific provision in the statute. Section 27 of the Act is not such a provision and that is erroneously relied upon. Once that provision together with Section 27A deals with specific cases of refund application claiming refund of duty or interest paid or borne by the applicant, then, that refund being sanctioned, delayed payment of that amount carries interest. Such is not the nature of the amount recovered from the petitioner nor borne by him. Once that is the admitted position, then, in the given facts and circumstances, we do not see how a claim for interest can be considered, leave alone granted. The petitioner may lay a claim for interest on receipt of such amount belatedly - petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Entitlement to interest on delayed refund under Section 27 and 27A of the Customs Act, 1962.
2. Applicability of the Customs Act provisions to the confiscated foreign currency and subsequent refund.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Entitlement to interest on delayed refund under Section 27 and 27A of the Customs Act, 1962:
The petitioner sought a writ of certiorari and mandamus for the interest component on the delayed refund under Section 27(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. The petitioner argued that the refund was sanctioned but not disbursed timely, thus entitling him to interest under Sections 27 and 27A of the Act. The respondent countered that Section 27 pertains to the refund of duty, and since the refund in question was not of duty, it did not carry an obligation to pay interest.

Upon examining Sections 27 and 27A, the court agreed with the respondent. Section 27 deals with claims for refund of duty or interest paid, and Section 27A specifies that interest is payable on delayed refunds of duty. The court noted that the refund in question was not of duty but of a redemption fine and penalty. Therefore, the delayed refund did not attract interest under the statutory provisions of the Customs Act.

2. Applicability of the Customs Act provisions to the confiscated foreign currency and subsequent refund:
The petitioner, an Iranian national, was intercepted at Mumbai International Airport carrying undeclared foreign currency, which was confiscated under the Customs Act, 1962. An order was passed imposing a redemption fine and penalty, which was later reduced by the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal. The petitioner sought a refund of the amount paid, which was eventually sanctioned but paid with a delay.

The court analyzed the applicability of the Customs Act provisions to the case. It was noted that the confiscation and subsequent refund were handled under the adjudication procedures of the Act. However, the court clarified that the refund of a redemption fine and penalty does not fall under the category of duty or interest refunds as outlined in Sections 27 and 27A. Therefore, the statutory mechanism for interest on delayed refunds did not apply to the petitioner's case.

The court concluded that there was no statutory provision enabling the petitioner to claim interest on the delayed refund of the redemption fine and penalty. The petitioner's claim for interest could not be considered within the framework of the Customs Act, 1962. The court dismissed the writ petition, stating that the petitioner might seek interest under general law but not under the specific statutory provisions of the Customs Act.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the writ petition, concluding that the petitioner was not entitled to interest on the delayed refund of the redemption fine and penalty under the Customs Act, 1962. The statutory provisions of Sections 27 and 27A did not apply to the nature of the refund in question. The petitioner could pursue a claim for interest under general law but not within the statutory framework of the Customs Act.