2019 (2) TMI 1365 - AT - Customs

Exemption under PTA Notification No. 152/2009 - import of shipments of complete build up units i.e. Washing Machine, Refrigerator, Microwave Oven, LED TV, Air Conditioner etc. - production of a certificate under Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement indicating the place of origin of the goods - Held that - As held by the Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of Aman Medical Products Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Customs, Delhi 2009 (9) TMI 41 - DELHI HIGH COURT , subsequently followed in the case of Micromax Informatics Ltd. vs. Union of India 2016 (3) TMI 431 - DELHI HIGH COURT , the law declared in the case of Priya Blue 2004 (9) TMI 105 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA would be applicable when there would be lis between the importer and the Revenue where the said lis stands decided against the assessee and the assessee has not challenged the said decision of the Revenue - the objection of the Revenue as regards the subsequent production of certificate cannot be upheld. Non-challenge of bills of entries - Held that - Admittedly the appellant never claimed the benefit of the Notification in which case the question of denial of the same cannot arise and it can be safely concluded that there was no lis between the importer and the Revenue. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Claim for refund of customs duty based on a certificate issued retrospectively.
2. Rejection of refund claim due to finality of assessment in Bills of Entries and violation of notification conditions.
3. Interpretation of law regarding subsequent procurement of certificate and its impact on refund claims.
4. Applicability of legal principles when there is no dispute between importer and Revenue.

Analysis:
1. The appellant imported goods subject to a PTA Notification requiring a certificate under the Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement (CEPA) indicating the goods' origin. The appellant did not have the certificate at the time of import and paid duty. Subsequently, a certificate issued retrospectively led to a refund claim of duty paid. Authorities rejected the claim citing finality of assessment and violation of notification conditions.

2. The appellant argued that a similar issue was decided in a Tribunal order and upheld by the High Court, stating that a certificate issued retrospectively covers goods imported before its issuance. The appellant contended that as they did not claim the benefit of the Notification during import, there was no dispute with the Revenue, applying legal principles from Delhi High Court judgments.

3. The Tribunal found that the High Court's decision supported the appellant's position on the retrospective certificate issue. Regarding the non-challenge to Bills of Entries, the Tribunal applied the legal principles from Delhi High Court judgments, stating that since there was no dispute between the parties due to the appellant not claiming the Notification benefit, the denial of the claim was unwarranted.

4. Ultimately, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal and granting consequential relief to the appellant. The decision emphasized the importance of legal precedents and the absence of a dispute between the importer and the Revenue in determining the outcome of the case.