1987 (8) TMI 198 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the initial assessment of duty on the imported goods was provisional or final.
2. Whether the proper officer was bound to reassess the goods based on the test report and refund any excess duty collected.
3. Applicability of Section 17 and Section 18 of the Customs Act, 1962, to the facts of the case.
4. Whether a refund application under Section 27 of the Customs Act was necessary.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Whether the initial assessment of duty on the imported goods was provisional or final:

The appellants contended that the initial assessment was provisional under Section 18(1)(b) of the Customs Act, 1962, as the proper officer deemed it necessary to subject the imported goods to a chemical test for the purpose of assessment. The Assistant Collector and the Appellate Collector held that the assessment was final. The Tribunal found that the initial assessment was provisional because a sample was drawn for testing to check the declarations in the Bill of Entry, indicating the assessment was not final.

2. Whether the proper officer was bound to reassess the goods based on the test report and refund any excess duty collected:

The appellants argued that under Section 17(4) of the Act, the proper officer was bound to reassess the goods based on the test report and refund any excess duty. The Tribunal concluded that Section 17(4) was not applicable as the initial assessment was not based solely on the Bill of Entry but also on an erroneous classification. However, under Section 18(2), the proper officer was duty-bound to make a final assessment based on the test report and refund any excess duty collected.

3. Applicability of Section 17 and Section 18 of the Customs Act, 1962, to the facts of the case:

The Tribunal analyzed Section 17 and found that subsections 17(1) and 17(2) were not applicable as the initial assessment was done before the test report was received. Section 17(4) was also deemed inapplicable because the initial assessment was not based on the statements in the Bill of Entry but on a higher duty classification to safeguard revenue. The Tribunal found Section 18 applicable, as the proper officer subjected the goods to a test, indicating a provisional assessment.

4. Whether a refund application under Section 27 of the Customs Act was necessary:

The Appellate Collector rejected the appeal on the grounds that no refund claim was made under Section 27, which was required for a refund. The Tribunal held that no refund application under Section 27 was necessary for the refund of excess duty collected due to provisional assessment. Section 27 would only be relevant if, after adjustment under Section 18(2), the importer believed further refund was due.

Conclusion:

The Tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities and remanded the matter to the Assistant Collector for de novo consideration on the merits of the classification and applicable rate of duty, based on the finding that the initial assessment was provisional. The appeal was allowed by way of remand with specific directions to reassess the goods and refund any excess duty collected without requiring a refund application under Section 27.