2018 (12) TMI 27 - AT - Customs

Refund of amount paid in excess - appellant had not challenged the Order-in-Original - Held that - Appeal of the appellant which is directed against the impugned order in this appeal, is infructuous to the extent of non refund of the amount in respect of declared items inasmuch as, appellant had not challenged the Order-in-Original dated 04.08.2009 to the first appellate authority and subsequent Order-in-Appeal dated 16.10.2009 wherein both the lower authorities have not reassessed the value of the declared items. In the absence of any such contest, the impugned order rejecting the refund claim as filed by the appellant is correct and does not require any interference - appeal dismissed.

Issues:
1. Valuation of declared goods and non-declared goods for customs assessment.
2. Confiscation of goods, redemption fine, and penalty imposition.
3. Appeal against Order-in-Appeal No. 45/2010 (H-II) Cus.
4. Refund claim rejection for the excess amount paid.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Valuation of declared and non-declared goods
The appeal was against the Order-in-Appeal No. 45/2010 (H-II) Cus, dated 16.07.2010. The appellant imported goods with both declared and non-declared items. The declared goods were assessed based on the value declared, and duty was paid. However, as the goods were imported without a license, they were confiscated with an option for redemption on payment of fines and penalties. The non-declared items were assessed based on a Chartered Engineer's certificate, and similar penalties were imposed. The Tribunal directed a reassessment of the declared goods' value considering actual insurance paid and the non-declared items based on the engineer's certificate, limiting fines and penalties. However, the adjudicating authority did not follow these directions, leading to further challenges.

Issue 2: Confiscation, fines, and penalties
The goods were confiscated with redemption fines and penalties imposed for both declared and non-declared items. The Tribunal had directed specific limits for fines and penalties, but the adjudicating authority did not comply. The subsequent appeal to the first appellate authority resulted in a reduction of fines and penalties but did not reassess the value of declared items. The challenge was specific to the findings on non-declared items, leading to a further appeal. The refund claim was also rejected, with the authorities upholding the initial assessment without reassessment of declared goods' value.

Issue 3: Appeal against Order-in-Appeal No. 45/2010 (H-II) Cus
The appeal to the Tribunal was against the Order-in-Appeal No. 45/2010 (H-II) Cus, dated 16.07.2010, which upheld the original confiscation and penalties. The Tribunal's directions for reassessment were not followed by the adjudicating authority, leading to subsequent challenges and appeals.

Issue 4: Refund claim rejection
The appellant filed a refund claim for the excess amount paid, primarily focusing on the non-declared items. However, the authorities rejected the refund claim for declared items, as there was no challenge to the initial assessment of their value. The appeal against the refund claim rejection was deemed infructuous due to the lack of contest regarding the reassessment of declared goods' value, as required by the Tribunal's directions.

In conclusion, the appeal was rejected due to the failure to contest the reassessment of declared goods' value, leading to the rejection of the refund claim for the excess amount paid. The Tribunal's directions for reassessment were not followed by the adjudicating authority, resulting in a complex legal situation regarding valuation, confiscation, fines, and penalties.

← Previous Next →