2021 (7) TMI 1126 - AT - Customs

Refund claim of Additional Customs Duty (ACD) - rejection on the ground that as per correlation sheet, the description in Bill-of-Entry and invoices did not tally and the last digit in the Bill-of-Entry No. 9252028 was entered as 3 instead of 8 - inadvertent mistake - rejection without ascertaining/verifying the claim of the appellant submitted by the letter containing revised correlation sheet duly certified by the Chartered Accountant - HELD THAT - The mistake, as canvassed by the Learned Advocate for the appellant, appears to have been explained, but however, the same requires to be verified with the support of documentary evidences like the certificate or self-supporting letter like the one dated 07.12.2019 filed by the appellant. Since this requires factual verification based on the documents, and also taking into consideration the common request for remand, impugned order is set aside and matter remanded back to the file of the Adjudicating Authority who may call for all such documents that may be required and pass an appropriate speaking order in accordance with law - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues: Refund of Additional Customs Duty (ACD) on imported goods.

Analysis:
1. The appellant imported bicycles, motorized cycles, bicycle parts, and accessories and paid Additional Customs Duty (ACD). The appellant filed a refund application in accordance with Notification No. 102/2007-Cus. The Assistant Commissioner of Customs-Refunds partially allowed the refund and rejected a portion of it. The appellant's appeal against this decision was rejected by the First Appellate Authority, leading to the current appeal.

2. The appellant's representative argued that the rejection of the refund was based on a discrepancy in the Bill-of-Entry number, where the last digit was entered incorrectly. The appellant submitted a revised correlation sheet certified by a Chartered Accountant to rectify this error. The First Appellate Authority was criticized for not verifying the appellant's claim based on the letter dated 07.12.2019 from the concerned Customs official.

3. The appellant requested a remand of the matter to the Adjudicating Authority for a fresh decision after considering their submissions. The Departmental Representative for the Revenue agreed to a de novo adjudication by the Original Authority.

4. The Member (Judicial) noted that while the mistake in the Bill-of-Entry number seemed to be explained, further verification was necessary. The Member emphasized the need for documentary evidence, such as the certified letter dated 07.12.2019, to support the appellant's claim.

5. Considering the need for factual verification and the mutual request for remand, the impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remanded back to the Adjudicating Authority. The Adjudicating Authority was directed to collect all necessary documents, conduct a thorough review, and issue a detailed order in compliance with the law, while ensuring the appellant's right to present their case.

6. Ultimately, the appeal was allowed by way of remand, providing an opportunity for a fresh examination of the refund claim with proper verification and consideration of all relevant documents and arguments.