9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (5) TMI 371 - SC - CustomsValuation - Undenatured Ethyl Alcohol - import price of the liquor - Import of goods against invalid licenses - Suppression of value of goods - Confiscation of goods - Redemption fine - Held that - when the invoices are produced showing the purchase price of the goods in question and authenticity of these invoices is not doubted by the Department, these will form as the primary evidence in support of the contention of the respondents that the imported goods were purchased at UK pound 1.40 per bulk litre. Refund of amount deposited in compliance with the interim order - unjust enrichment - Held that - By another Circular No.802/35/2004-CX., dated 08.12.2004 issued by the Board, the Board emphasised that such amounts should be refunded immediately as non-returning of the deposits attracts interest that has been granted by the courts in number of cases. - since the amount in question was deposited in compliance with the interim order passed by the High Court of Bombay, which was not towards duty, the question of unjust enrichment would not arise at all. - Decided against Rvenue.
Issues Involved:
1. Import price of the liquor. 2. Reduction of redemption fine. 3. Reduction of penalty. 4. Refund of deposited amount and applicability of the doctrine of unjust enrichment. Detailed Analysis: 1. Import Price of the Liquor: The primary issue was whether the imported goods were correctly priced at UK pound 1.40 per bulk litre or UK pound 3.78 per bulk litre as claimed by the Revenue. The Collector of Customs dismissed the authenticity of a letter indicating the lower price but failed to consider the invoices provided by the respondents, which clearly mentioned the price of UK pound 1.40 per bulk litre. The CESTAT accepted the invoices as primary evidence since their authenticity was not questioned by the Department. The Supreme Court found no flaw in the CESTAT's reasoning, thus upholding the import price as UK pound 1.40 per bulk litre. 2. Reduction of Redemption Fine: The CESTAT reduced the redemption fine imposed by the Collector of Customs. The Tribunal noted that the goods were liable for confiscation due to being imported without a valid license. However, it took into account the practice of allowing clearances under REP licenses until a specific decision in 2002, the long lapse of time since import, and the nature of the goods as raw materials. The Tribunal also highlighted the liberalization of the import policy and the absence of duty evasion. Consequently, the fine levied on FCPL was reduced from Rs. 51,62,413 to Rs. 10 lakhs, and on SRN from Rs. 22,65,006 to Rs. 15 lakhs. The Supreme Court found these reasons valid and did not interfere with the CESTAT's discretion. 3. Reduction of Penalty: The CESTAT also reduced the penalties imposed by the Collector of Customs. The Supreme Court upheld this decision, agreeing with the Tribunal's reasoning and the discretion exercised based on valid considerations. 4. Refund of Deposited Amount and Applicability of the Doctrine of Unjust Enrichment: The appellant, a successor in interest of Shaw Wallace Distilleries, deposited Rs. 1,56,64,500 pursuant to an interim order by the Bombay High Court for the release of seized goods. The appellant sought a refund of this amount after the CESTAT ruled that no additional duty was payable by the importers, and penalties were substantially reduced. The High Court of Bombay applied the doctrine of unjust enrichment to deny the refund of the duty amount but allowed the refund of the fine. The Supreme Court, however, noted that the appellant was a bona fide purchaser and not the importer, and the deposit was not towards any custom duty but was made as a condition for the release of goods. The Court referred to various circulars and judicial pronouncements clarifying that pre-deposits for appeals are not covered under Section 11B of the Customs Act and should be refunded if the appellant succeeds. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order, allowing the refund of the entire amount with interest at 13% per annum. Conclusion: The Supreme Court upheld the CESTAT's findings on the import price, reduction of redemption fine, and penalties. It also ruled in favor of the appellant regarding the refund of the deposited amount, clarifying that the doctrine of unjust enrichment was not applicable in this context. The appeals by the Revenue were dismissed, and the appellant's appeal for a refund was allowed.
|
