2019 (4) TMI 1187 - AT - Customs

Refund of the excess duty - re-assessment of the bills - Misdeclaration of imported goods - spark ignition engines for motor cars - ECM Engine - grievance of the appellant is that the lower authorities have not considered their request for alteration of the tariff item in the bills of entry - principles of natural justice - HELD THAT - Refund is a special provision under section 27 of Customs Act, 1962 that is comprehensive and self-contained on its own. Likewise, re-assessment is intrinsic to section 17 of Customs Act, 1962. Irrespective of eligibility or entitlement to either of these, the errors will have to be attended to under section 149 of Customs Act, 1962 and in accordance with the law prescribed. This aspect has not been examined by the lower authorities; it would be appropriate to set aside the impugned order and refer the matter back to the original authority for considering the application of the appellant under the provision of section 149 of Customs Act, 1962. Appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
Import of 'spark ignition engines for motor cars' and 'ECM Engine' misdeclared under Customs Tariff Act, 1975.

Analysis:
The dispute in this case revolves around the import of 'spark ignition engines for motor cars' and 'ECM Engine' by M/s General Motors India Pvt Ltd, which were held as misdeclared under specific headings of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. The appellant argued that the goods were correctly described in the bills of entry but were erroneously entered under different headings, resulting in excess duty. The appellant sought re-assessment of the bills of entry under sections 154 and 149 of the Customs Act, 1962. The original authority and the Commissioner of Customs(Appeals) rejected the application for re-assessment, leading to the appeal before the Tribunal.

The appellant contended that rectification of clerical errors is permissible under section 154 and alteration of particulars in bills of entry is allowed under section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962. Citing legal precedents, the appellant argued that these provisions provide scope for revisiting assessments at the discretion of competent authorities. The appellant also relied on various Tribunal decisions and a High Court decision to support their argument for re-assessment based on rectification of errors in the bills of entry.

The respondent, on the other hand, clarified that the goods were not examined due to clearance under the 'risk management scheme,' making it challenging to verify the actual nature of the goods. The respondent argued that the application by the appellant sought refund or re-assessment, which are not within the scope of section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962. Legal precedents, including Supreme Court decisions and a Tribunal decision, were cited to support the position that refund claims are only maintainable through appellate proceedings challenging the assessment order.

The Tribunal acknowledged that there was an error in the bills of entry where the description did not correspond to the actual goods imported. It was noted that the appellant's request for alteration of the tariff item in the bills of entry was not considered by the lower authorities. The Tribunal emphasized that rectification of errors should be addressed under section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962, irrespective of eligibility for refund or re-assessment. The matter was remanded back to the original authority for proper consideration under section 149, highlighting the statutory responsibility of the assessing officer in determining the tariff item for imported goods.

In conclusion, the appeal was disposed of based on the need for proper consideration of the appellant's application for rectification of errors in the bills of entry under section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962. The Tribunal highlighted the importance of accurate classification by the assessing officer and the necessity for addressing errors in the import documentation to ensure compliance with customs regulations.