1997 (6) TMI 171 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Refund claim rejection based on duty payment procedure.
2. Applicability of limitation period for refund claims.
3. Endorsement of duty paying documents as 'under protest.'
4. Refund arising from an unappealed order.
5. Verification of 'under protest' endorsement in Bills of Entry.
6. Need for detailed examination of issues and remand.

Analysis:
The appellants imported acrylic fiber and filed Ex-bond Bills of Entry with a declared value not accepted by the Bombay Custom House, resulting in goods being assessed at an enhanced value. Subsequently, refund claims were filed for excess duty paid due to the value enhancement. The Asstt. Collector rejected the refund claims, stating that duty was not paid under protest as per the required procedure, leading to the application of a time limit for refund claims under the Customs Act, 1960. The ld. Collector (Appeals) upheld this decision, prompting the appeals before the Tribunal.

The ld. Advocate for the appellants argued that marking the duty payment documents as 'under protest' indicated the importer's intention to pay duty under protest, citing a Tribunal decision supporting this view. Additionally, he contended that the refund claim, stemming from an unchallenged order, should not be subject to any limitation period. On the other hand, the ld. JDR highlighted discrepancies in the 'under protest' endorsements on the Bills of Entry, emphasizing the necessity of a formal protest submission for a valid protest. The Tribunal noted the divergence in views and the need for a thorough examination of the Bills of Entry and the refund's origin.

The Tribunal deliberated on whether the 'under protest' endorsements were present in the Bills of Entry and the impact of the unchallenged order on the refund claim's limitation period. Recognizing the need for a detailed verification of the endorsements and the order's implications, the Tribunal decided to remand the case to the Adjudicating authority for a comprehensive review. The Tribunal directed the authority to consider the case law, submissions, and principles of natural justice, aiming for a resolution within four months. Ultimately, the appeals were allowed by remand, signifying the need for a more in-depth analysis of the issues at hand.