2009 (7) TMI 249 - AT - Customs

Rejection of refund claim - The appellants brought back the goods exported and for which they filed required Bill of Entry and paid custom duty along with interest - After making the payment of duty demand along with interest the appellant was informed that they have to pay the heavy demurrage charges - instead of making the demurrage charges, the appellants vide their letter addressed to the Deputy Commissioner of Customs, and informed about their intention for not clearing the goods against the above said Bill of Entry and further abandoning the said goods. After the said letter, the appellants sought refund of the amount deposited by them including the interest. - In the present case, the Bill of Entry was assessed with the direction to the appellants to pay import duty and interest and the same was complied with but the order permitting clearance of the goods for home consumption was not given by the proper officer under Section 47 of the Customs Act. The appellant has the right to relinquish his title on the goods under Section 23 of the Act as out of charges was not given by the proper officer under Section 47 of the Act. impugned order is set aside appeal is allowed

Summary

In the appellate tribunal CESTAT, Mumbai judgment of 2009 (7) TMI 249, the appeal was filed by the appellants against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) confirming the rejection of a refund claim of Rs. 7,85,717. The case involved the export of goods in 2005 to buyers in Dubai, which were not cleared or paid for, and subsequently brought back to India. The appellants filed a Bill of Entry in 2006 and were asked to pay a customs duty amounting to Rs. 7,46,160 along with interest. After depositing the amount, the appellants sought a refund, which was rejected by the Assistant Commissioner and Commissioner (Appeals).

The main issue in the case was whether the appellants were entitled to a refund of the duty paid on the goods that were abandoned before clearance for home consumption under Section 47 of the Customs Act. The appellant argued that they had the right to abandon the goods under Section 23 of the Act as the order permitting clearance of the goods was not given by the proper officer under Section 47. The tribunal agreed with the appellant's contention and set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal with consequential relief.

The judgment highlighted the importance of complying with statutory provisions and the right of an importer to relinquish title to goods before clearance for home consumption. It also emphasized the need for proper assessment and compliance with customs regulations to avoid disputes over refund claims. The case underscored the significance of procedural requirements and the implications of failing to challenge assessment orders in a timely manner. Ultimately, the tribunal's decision favored the appellant's interpretation of the Customs Act and provided clarity on the issue of refund claims for abandoned goods.