2021 (3) TMI 973 - HC - Customs

Refund of the Special Additional Duty of customs - rejection on the ground of time limitation - seizure of documents by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence for which delay occurred - N/N.102/2007-Cus dated 14.09.2007 as amended by Notification No.93/2008-Cus dated 01.08.2008 - HELD THAT - The petitioners plead Lex non-cogit ad impossibilia in filing of refund claims in time. According to the petitioners, they had to liaison with the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence to get copies of the Bills of Entries and since the Bills of Entries were not given to the petitioners in time, there was a delay in filing the refund claims. It is therefore submitted that seizure of documents by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence cannot be against the petitioners. Denial of benefit of Notification No.102/2007-Cus dated 14.09.2007 as amended by Notification No.93/2008-Cus dated 01.08.2008 to the petitioners on the ground of limitation is not justified if the specified documents were seized by the officers of Directorate of Revenue Intelligence - in the present case, denial of refund claims based on the limitation prescribed under the Notification cannot be justified and imposed against the petitioner M/s.Kaamda Impex as all the documents of the said petitioner were admittedly seized as per the Mahazer dated 02.07.2013. The said writ petitioner could not have filed the refund claims in absence of the vital documents. The cases are remitted back to the second respondent to pass a fresh order of refund of the amounts paid by the petitioner at the time of import, if the said writ petitioner has otherwise satisfied the other requirements of Notification No.102/2007- Cus dated 14.09.2007 as amended by Notification No.93/2008-Cus dated 01.08.2008 - petition allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
Challenging impugned orders by Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) upholding Order-in-Originals rejecting refund claims based on limitation under Customs Tariff Act, 1975. Seizure of documents by Directorate of Revenue Intelligence affecting timely filing of refund claims. Interpretation of Notification No.102/2007-Cus regarding conditions for granting refund. Consideration of alternate remedy before Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal. Examination of refund claims based on documents seized and exclusion of time for filing claims due to seizure.

Analysis:
The judgment of the Madras High Court dealt with five Writ Petitions challenging orders passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) upholding Order-in-Originals rejecting refund claims due to limitation under the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. The petitioners argued that the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence's seizure of documents hindered timely filing of refund claims within one year from duty payment, as required by Notification No.102/2007-Cus. The petitioners contended that the seizure of documents by DRI should not prejudice them, citing Supreme Court decisions in support.

The respondents maintained that the orders were well-reasoned and that the petitioners had an alternate remedy before the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal. The court considered both parties' arguments, noting that the petitioners had allowed others to import goods using their Importer Exporter Code, leading to anti-dumping duty evasion suspicions. The court found that some refund claims were rejected as time-barred while others were partially allowed within the limitation period.

Regarding the seizure of documents by DRI, the court held that any delay in filing refund claims due to the seizure should be excluded from the limitation period. The court emphasized the importance of the required documents for claiming refunds under the Notification, and if such documents were seized, denial of refund based on limitation was unjustified. The court quashed orders denying refunds for one petitioner and remitted the cases back to the second respondent for reconsideration within three months.

For another petitioner, the court noted uncertainty regarding the seizure of documents and remitted the case for further examination. The court directed the second respondent to consider the impact of document seizure on the filing period and to pass appropriate orders based on the observations made. Ultimately, the court disposed of all five Writ Petitions with these directions, emphasizing the exclusion of time due to document seizure and the need for a thorough examination of refund claims based on the circumstances.