2018 (11) TMI 239 - AT - Customs

Refund of duty paid at the time of export - export duty on iron ore fines was rescinded vide notification dated 7th December 2008 - Relevant date of export - Held that - The goods were entered for export before 7th December 2008 when export-duty on iron ore fines subsisted. Notwithstanding the date of departure of the vessel under section 16 of Customs Act, 1962, the grant of let export order is the relevant date on which date the export formalities are completed and clearance allowed under section 51 of the Customs Act, 1962 - refund cannot be allowed - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Eligibility for exemption notification no. 129/2008 dated 7th December 2008.
2. Liability for recovery of differential duty.
3. Refund claim for duty paid at the time of export.

Eligibility for Exemption Notification:
The appellant, an exporter of 'iron ore fines', filed a shipping bill and goods were provisionally assessed to duty. The original authority later determined a differential duty for recovery and rejected the refund claim filed by the exporter. The appellant claimed that since the goods left India after the export duty on 'iron ore fines' was rescinded, they were not liable for the recovery of differential duty and were eligible for a refund. The Tribunal considered the relevant dates under the Customs Act, emphasizing that the grant of 'let export order' is crucial for determining duty liability. Citing precedents, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, concluding that the appellant was not eligible for the exemption and upheld the recovery of differential duty.

Liability for Recovery of Differential Duty:
The appellant's claim was based on the contention that the export duty on 'iron ore fines' was rescinded before the goods left India, thereby absolving them from the recovery of differential duty. The Tribunal analyzed the relevant legal provisions and held that the date of the grant of 'let export order' is pivotal in determining duty liability. Referring to legal precedents, the Tribunal rejected the appellant's argument and upheld the original authority's decision to recover the differential duty.

Refund Claim for Duty Paid at the Time of Export:
The appellant's refund claim for duty paid at the time of export was rejected by the original authority. The Tribunal, after considering the submissions and legal precedents cited by the Authorized Representative, dismissed the appeal, stating that the appellant was not entitled to the refund claim. The Tribunal's decision was based on the interpretation of the relevant dates under the Customs Act and the legal principles established in previous judgments.

In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal of M/s Rajaram NS Bandekar & Co Pvt Ltd, emphasizing the significance of the 'let export order' date in determining duty liability and rejecting the appellant's claims for exemption eligibility and refund of duty paid at the time of export.