9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (3) TMI 460 - AT - CustomsSeeking amendment in the bills of entry - Goods imported Fitbit Wearable Devices - Whether a direction should be issued to the Deputy Commissioner to decide pending application filed u/s 149? - Refund of customs duty wrongly paid - HELD THAT - Once an application for amendment has been filed, it is the duty of the Adjudicating Authority to decide it in view of the specific provisions contained u/s 149 of the Customs Act and the said application cannot be kept pending indefinitely. It is not open to the department to raise a plea in this appeal that a direction should not be issued by the Tribunal for deciding the appellant as it may ultimately lead to a situation that the application filed by the appellant u/s 149 of the Customs Act would remain undecided as the Deputy Commissioner will not decide and the Tribunal cannot issue a direction. A statutory duty is cast upon the Deputy Commissioner to decide the application at the earliest and the said application cannot be kept pending indefinitely. It is the contention of the appellant that the application for amendment of the Bills of Entry u/s 149 of the Customs Act was filed on 11.07.2019, but it has not been decided as yet and in fact the Commissioner (Appeals) before whom a direction was sought also refused to grant such a relief holding that such a power is not vested in him under the provisions of the Customs Act. It would, therefore, be appropriate that in case the application has already not been decided, it should be decided expeditiously and preferably within a period of three months from the date of filing of this order before the Deputy Commissioner. Such a direction is necessary as the application was filed in the year 2019 and almost more than three years have lapsed. The appeal is, accordingly, disposed of with the aforesaid direction.
Issues involved:
The appeal challenges the order of the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) upholding the rejection of a refund application for certain Bills of Entry while allowing it for others. Details of the Judgment: Issue 1: Refund claim and re-assessment of Bills of Entry The appellant imported "Fitbit Wearable Devices" under a certain classification but later sought a refund claiming correct classification under a different category with Nil Basic Customs Duty. The refund application was rejected for eight Bills of Entry as re-assessment had not been done, and no certificates were provided to show that excess duty had not been passed on. The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeal for three Bills of Entry based on re-assessment. Issue 2: Invocation of section 27 of the Customs Act The Commissioner (Appeals) held that the provisions of section 27 of the Customs Act cannot be invoked without amending or modifying the Bills of Entry used for self-assessment. The appellant had not appealed or sought amendment for eight Bills of Entry, leading to the rejection of the refund applications based on the Supreme Court judgment in ITC Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise. Issue 3: Direction for pending application under section 149 of the Customs Act The appellant sought a direction for the Deputy Commissioner to decide a pending application for amendment of Bills of Entry under section 149 of the Customs Act. The Tribunal noted the duty of the Adjudicating Authority to decide such applications promptly and ordered that the application be decided within three months, considering the delay since the filing in 2019. Conclusion: The Tribunal disposed of the appeal with a direction for expeditious decision on the pending application for amendment of Bills of Entry under section 149 of the Customs Act, emphasizing the statutory duty of the Deputy Commissioner to decide such applications promptly.
|
