1997 (1) TMI 101 - HC - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of Customs Duty exemption under Notification No. 208/81-Cus.
2. Validity of assessment and collection of duty on imported goods.
3. Jurisdiction of Assistant Collector of Customs.
4. Availability of refund for duty paid under mistake of law.

Analysis:
1. The case involved the interpretation of Customs Duty exemption under Notification No. 208/81-Cus. The petitioner imported Balloon Catheters and claimed duty exemption under the relevant notification. The Customs Department refused clearance, citing a previous decision that classified the goods differently. The petitioner cleared the goods under protest to avoid demurrage, unaware of a Tribunal decision granting duty exemption to similar goods.
2. The Assistant Collector of Customs assessed and collected duty on the imported goods based on the department's classification, leading to the petitioner seeking a refund. The petitioner argued that the goods were entitled to complete exemption under the notification, and the duty was paid under a mistake of law and fact. The petitioner sought quashing of the assessment and refund of the duty collected.
3. The jurisdiction of the Assistant Collector of Customs was questioned regarding the levy of duty on the imported goods. The petitioner contended that the goods should have been cleared without duty payment based on the duty exemption notification. The Court held that the department could not have collected the duty since the goods were eligible for complete exemption as Suction Catheters under the notification.
4. The availability of a refund for duty paid under a mistake of law was discussed. The respondents argued that the refund was barred by limitation and the duty was not paid under protest. The Court directed the petitioners to file refund applications with the Assistant Collector of Customs within a specified period for consideration under the Customs Act provisions, emphasizing the need for due process.

Overall, the judgment addressed the issues of Customs Duty exemption interpretation, validity of duty assessment, jurisdiction of the Assistant Collector, and the availability of a refund for duty paid under a mistake of law. The Court upheld the petitioner's claim for duty exemption and directed a process for potential refund, balancing legal principles and procedural requirements.