1997 (6) TMI 154 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Time-barred refund claim under Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962.
2. Submission of letter of protest and evidence of duty payment under protest.
3. Lack of proof of submission of protest letters by the appellant.
4. Failure to follow the procedure for lodging a protest.

Analysis:
1. The appeal pertains to a refund claim rejected by the Collector on the grounds of being time-barred under Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962. The appellants argued that they paid duty under protest due to the absence of an essentiality certificate as required by Notification 97/89-Cus., dated 1-3-1989. However, the Collector found the claim to be beyond the six-month limit and lacking evidence of duty payment under protest, leading to the rejection of the claim.

2. The appellants contended that they submitted a letter of protest along with the Bill of Entry, but the authorities found no proof of posting or receipt of these protest letters. The appellants failed to provide evidence of sending the letters by registered post or obtaining acknowledgments from customs officials. The absence of proper documentation and procedural adherence raised doubts about the veracity of their claims regarding the submission of protest letters and duty payment under protest.

3. The Tribunal noted that the appellants did not appear to explain their case in person or provide any evidence of dispatching the protest letters. The lack of proof of submission or service of the protest letters, coupled with the absence of endorsements on the Bill of Entry indicating payment under protest, weakened the appellants' position. Without concrete evidence supporting their assertions, the Tribunal found the appeal unsubstantiated and lacking merit, leading to its rejection.

4. Importantly, the Tribunal highlighted the procedural requirements for lodging a protest that the importer failed to fulfill. The appellants' failure to follow the prescribed procedure, such as obtaining acknowledgments or endorsements, further undermined their claim. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of complying with established procedures and providing tangible evidence to support claims in customs matters, ultimately leading to the dismissal of the appeal due to insufficient substantiation of the appellant's contentions.