2018 (9) TMI 763 - AT - Customs

Refund claim - duty paid under protest - Assessments of the shipping bills - Finalization of assessment - Held that - Section 154 of the Customs Act empowers the officers to correct clerical or arithmetic mistakes in any decision or order. In this case, the duty was paid at the higher rate but the assessment was made subject to the outcome of the test reports of the chemical examiner. In fact, if the chemical examiner s report had shown that the Fe content in the iron ore was higher than 62% then no refund would have arisen as a consequence. Thus, it can be said that the assessment was made provisionally by the assessing officer, although the word provisionally assessed was not mentioned on the face of the shipping bill. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues: Appeal against order sanctioning refund of differential duty paid by exporter, challenge to assessment finality, correctness of refund sanction.

Analysis:
1. Assessment Finality and Refund Claim: The appeal was filed by the Revenue against the order sanctioning the refund of the differential duty paid by the exporter. The Revenue contended that the assessment in the shipping bill was final as there was no challenge to it, and therefore, the refund could not be claimed without challenging the assessment first. The Revenue relied on the principle established in the case of Priya Blue Industries Vs Commissioner of Customs. However, the appellate tribunal noted that the assessment was not reopened, but the Customs Act allows for correction of clerical or arithmetic mistakes in any decision or order under Section 154. The duty was paid at a higher rate pending the chemical examiner's report, which confirmed the Fe content was below 62%. The tribunal found that the assessment was made provisionally, and the duty calculation was incorrect. The assessing officer rectified the error under Section 154 and sanctioned the refund, which was upheld by the first appellate authority. The tribunal concluded that the Customs officers were within their powers to correct such mistakes, and the refund was rightly sanctioned.

2. Correctness of Refund Sanction: The Revenue argued that the refund sanction was incorrect as the assessment was not challenged, and the duty was paid at a higher rate without protest. The tribunal, however, observed that the duty payment was based on the pending test report, and the assessment was provisional. The assessing officer rectified the mistake under Section 154 after the chemical examiner's report confirmed the Fe content. The tribunal emphasized that the duty calculation was wrong, and the assessing officer had the authority to correct such errors. The order of the assessing officer and the first appellate authority upholding the refund sanction were found to be in accordance with the Customs Act. Therefore, the tribunal rejected the appeal filed by the Revenue.

In conclusion, the appellate tribunal upheld the order sanctioning the refund of the differential duty paid by the exporter, emphasizing the provisional nature of the assessment and the authority of the assessing officer to correct mistakes under Section 154 of the Customs Act. The tribunal found no infirmity in the refund sanction and rejected the appeal filed by the Revenue.