2019 (1) TMI 982 - AT - Customs

Refund of excess Customs duty - rejection on the ground that the assessment of the Bill of Entry was as per the amended Section 17 of the Customs Act, 1962 and the customs duty was paid by the appellant on the basis of their own assessment and that assessment has attained finality being not challenged by the appellant - unjust enrichment - Held that - The appellants were eligible for concessional rate of duty as per Notification No.46/2011-Cus. in view of the fact that the goods were imported from Malaysia in terms of the ASEAN-India Free Trade Area Preferential Tariff Agreement. Also, in the present case, there was no dispute about classification or valuation or description of the imported goods. Therefore there was no need to challenge the assessment. Unjust enrichment - Held that - The appellant has produced a certificate from the Chartered Accountant who after verification of the records has certified that the amount of duty paid is shown as receivables under the head Customs duty receivables in the books of accounts of the appellant. But the said certificate has been rejected by the Commissioner(Appeals) on the ground which is not sustainable in law - on identical issue, the Tribunal in the case of Indian Institute of Science 2011 (4) TMI 1289 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT has allowed the appeal of the assessee and remanded the case back to the original authority to decide the issue de novo after affording an opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
- Incorrect assessment of customs duty
- Claim for refund rejected on grounds of unjust enrichment

Analysis:
1. Incorrect assessment of customs duty:
The appellant filed a Bill of Entry for the import of an item called L-Methionine 99% Feed Grade, self-assessed the customs duty, and paid an amount based on their own assessment. Later, they realized that they had paid excess duty and sought a refund. The Assistant Commissioner rejected the refund claim, stating that the assessment had attained finality and was not challenged by the appellant. The Commissioner(Appeals) also rejected the appeal. The appellant argued that the error in the Bill of Entry could be corrected by the Department under Section 154 of the Customs Act, 1962, as they were entitled to an exemption under a specific Customs Notification. The appellant contended that the assessment was not challenged as there was no dispute about the goods' classification, valuation, or description. The Tribunal, in a similar case, allowed the appeal and remanded it back to the original authority. Following this precedent, the present order set aside the impugned order and remanded the case for a fresh decision, instructing the original authority to consider the appellant's evidence and observations made.

2. Claim for refund rejected on grounds of unjust enrichment:
The original authority rejected the refund claim on the doctrine of unjust enrichment. However, the Commissioner(Appeals) did not discuss this aspect in the impugned order. The appellant provided a certificate from a Chartered Accountant certifying that the duty paid was shown as receivables in their books of accounts, but this certificate was rejected by the Commissioner(Appeals) on unsustainable grounds. The order highlighted that the Tribunal had previously allowed a similar appeal and remanded the case back to the original authority. The decision of the Tribunal was upheld by the High Court. Therefore, based on this precedent, the present order set aside the impugned order and remanded the case to the original authority for a fresh decision, emphasizing the need to consider the appellant's evidence and observations made in the order.

This detailed analysis of the judgment covers the issues of incorrect assessment of customs duty and the rejection of the refund claim on the grounds of unjust enrichment, providing a comprehensive understanding of the legal reasoning and decisions made in the case.