2008 (2) TMI 126 - AT - Customs

On realising mistake that as per Not. 103/04 duty was payable @ 10%, not 15%, assessee requested Revenue u/s 154 to rectify Bill of Entry revenue was justified in rejecting the request on ground that benefit of notification cannot be extended to the importer subsequent to the payment of duty since assessment order have not been modified in appeal, refund is not allowable - Once assessments is finalized, only option available to importer is to challenge the same before the higher appellate

Summary

Issues:
1. Correct rate of duty for imported goods.
2. Rectification of Bill of Entry under Section 154 of Customs Act, 1962.
3. Maintainability of refund claim without modifying assessment order.
4. Applicability of judgments by Hon'ble Supreme Court and Tribunal on similar cases.
5. Interpretation of Section 154 for rectification of clerical or mathematical errors in Bill of Entry.

Analysis:

1. The appellant initially paid duty at 15% for imported goods in December 2004, later realizing that the correct rate was 10% as per Notification No.103/2004. They sought rectification of the mistake under Section 154 of the Customs Act, 1962, which was denied by the authorities citing that Section 154 only allows correction of clerical or mathematical errors, and benefit of notification cannot be extended post-payment without filing an appeal against the Bill of Entry.

2. The Tribunal concurred with the Revenue's stance, citing the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Priya Blue Industries, which established that a refund claim contrary to the assessment order is not maintainable without modifying the assessment through an appeal. Since no appeal was filed against the original Bill of Entry assessment, seeking rectification amounted to modifying the assessment without challenging it before the higher adjudicating authority. The Tribunal emphasized that Section 154 only permits rectification in clerical or mathematical aspects, and once assessments are finalized, the importer's recourse is to appeal and not seek rectification.

3. The appellant relied on a judgment by the Hon'ble Kerala High Court in a similar case, but the Tribunal noted that this judgment predates the Supreme Court's decision in Priya Blue Industries, which now establishes the legal position on such matters. Therefore, the Tribunal rejected the appeal based on the established legal principles and precedents.

4. Considering the legal precedents set by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Tribunal in similar cases, the Tribunal upheld the denial of rectification of the Bill of Entry and emphasized the importance of following the prescribed legal procedures, including challenging assessments through the appropriate appellate forums.

5. The Tribunal's decision was guided by the interpretation of Section 154 of the Customs Act, 1962, which restricts rectification to clerical or mathematical errors and does not allow for post-assessment modifications without following the appeal process. The Tribunal's ruling was in line with established legal principles and judgments by higher courts and tribunals, ensuring consistency and adherence to legal procedures in customs matters.