2019 (12) TMI 955 - HC - Customs

Refund of Customs Duty - classification of goods - polyester cloths - petitioner had deposited a duty of ₹ 5,34,521.13 on the basis of the valuation of ₹ 27,22,160/- whereas as per respondent the duty leviable on this petitioner comes to ₹ 47,57,416/- - HELD THAT - In view of the aforesaid Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) dated 23.10.2013, a fresh sample drawn by the respondent is to be re-tested. Thus, fresh Order-in-Original will have to be passed by the respondent and therefore till then no refund can be granted to this petitioner. As the respondent has yet to pass an order on the basis of the retesting, as directed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), we are not going much into the details of the case. Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Refund claim of duty deposited.
2. Classification of goods dispute.
3. Re-testing of goods and pending order by respondent.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking a refund of ?42,23,111 deposited with the respondent. The duty amount deposited was ?5,34,521.13 based on a valuation of ?27,22,160, while the respondent contended the duty should be ?47,57,416. The respondent detailed the calculation in the Order in Original and Order-in-Appeal. The Order-in-Appeal mentioned that the CRCL provided the nature of the product, but the classification was decided by the Assessing Authority. The appellant failed to submit contentions appropriately despite a fair opportunity. The Order-in-Appeal directed a re-test of the goods, and the appeal was disposed of with directions for fresh consideration by the original authorities based on the re-test results.

2. The High Court noted that a fresh sample drawn by the respondent was to be re-tested as per the Order-in-Appeal. Therefore, until a new Order-in-Original is passed by the respondent, no refund can be granted to the petitioner. The court refrained from delving deeper into the case as the dispute was pending with the respondent for a final order. Consequently, the court found no merit in the writ petition at that stage and dismissed it.

In conclusion, the judgment dealt with the petitioner's claim for a refund of duty deposited, the dispute over the classification of goods, and the direction for re-testing of the goods by the respondent. The court emphasized the need for a fresh assessment based on the re-test results before considering any refund.