2024 (3) TMI 418 - AT - Customs

Maintainability of Refund claim - Order of assessment was not challenged - whether in the absence of any challenge to the order of assessment in appeal, any refund application against the assessed duty can be entertained? - HELD THAT - From the letter, it is evident that the these letters are in nature of assessment order determining the duty payable on the gold sought to redeemed as per the order. Appellant had not challenged the determination of the duty as per these letters/ assessment orders before the appellate authority and got the order modified in appeal. It is settled law that appellant refund claim wherein the order determining the duty is not challenged and modified in appeal by the appellate authority, refund claim is not maintainable. Refund proceedings in terms of Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962 are only executionary and duty amounts cannot be redetermined in such proceedings. Thus, the refund claim filed by the appellant without any challenge to the two letters determining the duty payable in terms of Section 125 (2) is maintainable, till the time assessment made in the said letters is set aside by the appropriate appellate authority. Appeal is dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the appellant is required to pay customs duty based on the current value of the gold at the time of release or on the seizure value.
2. Whether the refund claim filed by the appellant is maintainable without challenging the duty assessment orders.

Summary:

Issue 1: Duty Payment Basis
The appellant contended that customs duty should be based on the seizure value of the gold, as determined by the CESTAT order, rather than the current value at the time of redemption. They argued that the duty payable should be calculated in terms of Section 125(2) of the Customs Act on the value determined by CESTAT, citing precedents from M S Shoes East Ltd. and Bharat Surfactants Pvt Ltd. The impugned order, however, upheld that the duty must be calculated based on the current value of the gold at the time of release, as per Section 15 of the Customs Act, since the gold was subject to tariff valuation. The appellant's argument that Section 15 does not apply to baggage and postal imports was rejected due to lack of evidence proving the gold was imported as such.

Issue 2: Refund Claim Maintainability
The appellant filed a refund claim for the excess customs duty paid, arguing that the duty paid was significantly higher than legally required. The impugned order and the original adjudication rejected this claim, stating that the appellant did not challenge the duty assessment orders communicated through letters dated 09.05.2012 and 18.05.2012. The Tribunal referenced several Supreme Court judgments, including Mafatlal Industries Ltd., ITC Ltd., and Priya Blue Industries Ltd., to emphasize that a refund claim cannot be entertained unless the original assessment order is modified or set aside through appropriate appellate procedures. The refund proceedings under Section 27 of the Customs Act are executionary and do not allow for reassessment of duty amounts.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, affirming that the appellant's refund claim is not maintainable without first challenging the duty assessment orders. The duty must be paid based on the current value at the time of release, and the refund claim cannot be processed without modifying the original assessment through proper appellate channels.