1991 (4) TMI 228 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Duty payment on missing package
2. Claim for refund of duty
3. Application of Sec. 27 of the Customs Act
4. Excess payment of duty
5. Legal provision for adjustment of duty

Analysis:

The appeal was against the Order-in Appeal rejecting the appellant's claim for refund of duty paid twice on a missing package. The appellant, a Public Sector Undertaking, imported a consignment of two boxes but only one box was available for examination initially. Subsequently, the missing box was traced, and the goods were cleared after paying duty again. The Assistant Collector rejected the refund claim stating that duty was paid correctly initially. However, the Tribunal found that duty was paid twice on the four items in the missing box. The claim was made under protest on the second clearance, and the excess payment of duty arose only on the second Bill of Entry. The Tribunal disagreed with the Assistant Collector's view that there was no legal provision for adjustment of duty already paid for clearance taken subsequently.

The Tribunal noted that the duty had been paid twice on the same goods, and the excess payment was made as per the demand of the customs authorities. The claim for refund was filed within the time limit from the date of this excess payment, falling under Sec. 27 of the Customs Act. The Tribunal allowed the appeal, set aside the lower authorities' orders, and remanded the case back to the Assistant Collector for considering the claim for refund of the duty paid under the second Bill of Entry. The appellant was directed to produce all relevant documents before the Assistant Collector for further processing.

In conclusion, the Tribunal held that the appellant was entitled to a refund of the excess duty paid on the missing package, as the duty had been paid twice on the same goods. The Tribunal emphasized that the claim was not time-barred under Sec. 27 of the Customs Act and instructed the Assistant Collector to process the refund claim accordingly.