2016 (5) TMI 437 - HC - Customs

Entitlement for refund of duty paid - Respondent submitted that since the goods were assessed provisionally and not finally and duty paid was in the nature of advance deposited, the prayer for refund cannot be within the scope and ambit of refund of duty - Held that - it is evident that the appellant had filed the shipping bill declaring that all particulars given herein are true and correct and thus the goods were self-assessed. On the basis of the said bill duty was paid, shipments were allowed and the goods were exported. Therefore, as on the basis of the declaration, duty was paid by the appellant, the argument that the goods were provisionally assessed and the appellant is entitled to refund, is without substance. Moreover refund of duty was sought for after 6 months. - Decided against the appellant

Summary

Issues:
Admissibility of appeal under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962 based on substantial questions of law. Entitlement to refund of duty paid for goods not exported due to circumstances beyond control.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to an application seeking admission of an appeal under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962, challenging an order passed by the Customs, Excise and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal. The appeal was filed on the grounds of substantial questions of law as formulated in the application. The main contention raised by the appellant was the entitlement to a refund of duty paid for goods that could not be exported due to circumstances beyond their control. The appellant argued that since the goods were provisionally assessed and duty paid was in the nature of an advance deposit, they should be refunded the duty amount. The appellant relied on various judgments to support this claim, emphasizing the distinction between import and export cases.

The respondent, represented by an advocate, opposed the refund claim, asserting that the appellant had self-assessed the goods, declared the particulars as true and correct, paid the duty based on the self-assessment, and subsequently exported the goods. The respondent contended that seeking a refund after 6 1/2 months was not permissible, especially considering the self-assessment and export of the goods. The respondent distinguished the judgments cited by the appellant, highlighting that they pertained to import cases, whereas the present matter concerned export.

After hearing both parties, the Court examined the shipping bills and noted that the appellant had self-assessed the goods, declared the particulars as true and correct, paid the duty accordingly, and successfully exported the goods. Based on these findings, the Court concluded that the argument for refund, especially after a significant period post-export, lacked merit. The Court emphasized that the judgments cited by the appellant were in the context of import cases and did not apply to the current export scenario. Consequently, the Court dismissed the application and appeal, ruling that no substantial question of law arose in the matter.