2013 (1) TMI 80 - AT - Customs

Import by Post Postal import - Exemption of Basic Customs Duty - Section 82 of the Customs Act, 1962 - Notification No. 25/2005-Cus dated 1.3.2005 - Duty as assessed was paid by the respondent - Subsequently, they filed a refund claim stating that the goods were eligible for exemption of BCD - Refund claim was rejected by the original authority on the ground that the original assessment order was not challenged Held that - It is clear that the appellant could not have challenged the assessment based on the postal receipt without knowing the details of the assessment. It has not been shown that there was any opportunity given to the addressee of the parcels for claiming benefit of the notification before the assessing authority. The declaration accompanied by the parcel receipt has been treated as Bill of Entry. The postal department had practically undertaken the different roles which are clearly assigned to the custodian, CHA and the Bank, in addition to their normal role of receiving and delivery of the postal parcels. The refund claim filed by the respondent challenging the assessment made and seeking benefit of notification has to be treated both as a challenge to the assessment and as a claim for refund. In favour of assessee

Summary

Issues:
1. Validity of refund claim based on non-challenged original assessment.
2. Treatment of postal receipt as an assessment order.
3. Applicability of Priya Blue Industries case.
4. Opportunity for the addressee to claim benefit of notification before assessing authority.

Issue 1: Validity of refund claim based on non-challenged original assessment:
The case involved a refund claim filed by the respondent after the original assessment was not challenged as required by a previous judgment. The department contended that since the assessment was not challenged, the refund claim should not have been allowed. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the original authority's decision, leading to the department's appeal.

Issue 2: Treatment of postal receipt as an assessment order:
The Deputy Commissioner argued that the declaration accompanying the post parcels should be deemed as a Bill of Entry, and the duty assessed on the postal receipt should be considered an assessment order. He emphasized that since the assessment was not challenged by the party, the refund claim should not have been permitted.

Issue 3: Applicability of Priya Blue Industries case:
The department relied on the judgment in the Priya Blue Industries case to support its argument that the refund claim should not be admissible when the original assessment was not challenged. However, the respondent's advocate contended that the decision in Priya Blue Industries was not applicable to the present case due to the unique circumstances surrounding the assessment of the parcels.

Issue 4: Opportunity for the addressee to claim benefit of notification before assessing authority:
The Commissioner (Appeals) highlighted the procedural differences in assessing duty on post parcels compared to imports by air or sea. The parcels were assessed by the postal department based on documents received, and the details of assessment were not made known to the addressee. Therefore, the addressee could not have challenged the assessment without knowing the specifics, justifying the validity of the refund claim challenging the assessment and seeking the benefit of a customs duty exemption notification.

In the final judgment, the Tribunal upheld the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals), rejecting the department's appeal. The Tribunal concluded that the postal receipt could not be considered an assessment order that would enable the addressee to challenge it before the Commissioner (Appeals). The refund claim was deemed both a challenge to the assessment and a claim for refund, given the unique circumstances of the case.