9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Application for direction to implement order and refund by Customs authorities. 2. Validity of duty payment and refund entitlement based on collaboration agreement. 3. Interpretation of orders by Assistant Commissioner, Collector (Appeals), and Tribunal. 4. Jurisdiction of Customs authorities at different airports in following precedent. Analysis: 1. The appeal was filed by the Respondent seeking directions for the Customs authorities to implement the order passed in disposing of previous appeals and to make a refund in accordance with the decision of the Collector (Appeals) dated 30-5-1994. The Respondent also requested punishment for non-compliance with the Tribunal's order dated 10th January, 1995. The Tribunal heard the arguments presented by the Respondent's Counsel, Shri K. Parasurampuria, and proceeded to analyze the situation. 2. The applicant had entered into a collaboration agreement with a Japanese concern, leading to the examination of value by the Bombay Customs House. The Assistant Commissioner, Customs, Special Valuation Branch, Bombay, issued an order directing the invoice price to be loaded by specific percentages for imports from Japan. The appeals filed by the appellant against these orders were allowed by the Collector (Appeals), who accepted the invoice price for valuation purposes. The Department then filed appeals in the Tribunal, which were dismissed on 10-1-1995. 3. The goods were imported at both Bombay Airport and New Delhi Airport as part of the collaboration agreement. The applicant claimed that duty was paid as per provisional demand, and since the original order of the Assistant Commissioner in Bombay was reversed by the Collector (Appeals) and confirmed by the Tribunal, the applicant sought a refund of duty paid not only at Bombay but also at New Delhi. The Customs authority at New Delhi had refunded a part of the duty but was withholding the balance pending clarification from the Central Board of Excise and Customs, which was deemed unnecessary by the Board. The applicant sought directions against the authorities at New Delhi for the refund. 4. The Tribunal carefully reviewed the orders of the Assistant Commissioner in Bombay, the Collector (Appeals) in Bombay, and the Tribunal's order in the appeals. It was noted that the issue in the appeals was the correctness of the decision by the Assistant Commissioner in Bombay regarding loading the invoice price by a specific percentage, which did not directly impact imports at New Delhi Airport. While the Customs authorities at New Delhi followed the precedent set by Bombay, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant's remedy for seeking a refund from New Delhi authorities did not directly arise from the Tribunal's order in the appeals. Therefore, the application was dismissed, indicating that the applicant's remedy lies elsewhere.
|
