1981 (3) TMI 80 - CGOVT - Customs

Refund - Duty paid under protest - Levy of export duty not void - Applicability of time limit

Summary

Issues:
1. Payment of export duty under protest
2. Validity of levy of duty and application of limitation under Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962
3. Correct classification of exported goat hair for export duty purposes

Analysis:
1. The first issue pertains to whether the duty was paid under protest by the Exporters. The Government noted that while some shipping bills contained an endorsement of "export duty paid under protest," these endorsements were canceled without proper attestation, indicating the possibility of self-cancellation by the Exporters' representatives. Furthermore, the duty was paid during 1966-67 and 1968, but formal refund claims were only lodged after March 1970, beyond the two-year limit. The Government found the petitioners' contention regarding payment of duty under protest untenable due to inconsistencies in the documentation and delayed refund claims.

2. The second issue revolves around the validity of the levy of duty and the application of limitation under Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962. The Government highlighted a case where the High Court allowed an appeal challenging the levy of export duty on goat hair as raw wool, emphasizing the need for assessing officers to determine if goat hair qualifies as raw wool based on physical properties and evidence. The Government cited the Encyclopaedia Britannica to show that certain varieties of goat hair, like Angora and Kashmir goat hair, can be considered raw wool. Consequently, the Government concluded that the limitation under Section 27 would apply, as the assessing officers have the jurisdiction to decide the leviability of export duty based on the nature of the goat hair.

3. The final issue concerns the correct classification of the exported goat hair for export duty purposes. Since the refund claims were time-barred, the Government did not delve into the merits of the case regarding the classification of the goods. The appellate order, deemed correct in law, was upheld, and the revision application was rejected.