2016 (8) TMI 139 - AT - Customs

Refund of interest paid - Additional Customs Duty (CVD) and interest paid under protest for ex-bonding of their imported capital goods, warehoused in their Customs Private Bonded Warehouse. - he subject refund claim were filed on the ground that when the goods were imported and in-bonded, they were not having EPCG Scheme licence and by the time the EPCG licence allowing full duty exemption to the said in-bonded goods was issued, the initial warehousing period under Section 61 of Customs Act, 1962, was expired and they could not avail the full exemption under EPCG license as the ex-bond clearance was held up for want of extension of warehousing period by the proper authority. Held that - In the peculiar facts of this case, even though the licensing period was expired nothing prevented the appellant to pay the duty and clear the goods, if they are really very serious to avoid the payment of interest. It is also the fact that the appellant avoided the payment of Customs duty till the clearance of the goods, therefore the interest chargeable to the warehouse goods after expiry of one year is inevitable. Therefore the interest paid by the appellant under any circumstances is not refundable. - Decided against the assessee.

Summary

Issues: Refund claim for Additional Customs Duty and interest paid under protest, extension of warehousing period, liability for interest payment, rejection of refund claims, appeal before Commissioner (Appeals).

Refund Claim for Additional Customs Duty and Interest Paid Under Protest: The appellant filed refund claims for duty and interest paid under protest due to the delay in clearance of goods under the EPCG scheme. The appellant argued that the delay was caused by the department's refusal to extend the warehousing license, leading to interest charges. The Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appeal, stating that the interest paid was not refundable as the appellant failed to clear the goods despite opportunities to do so.

Extension of Warehousing Period: The appellant's request for an extension of the warehousing license was initially rejected, causing a delay in clearing the goods under the EPCG scheme. The Chief Commissioner eventually extended the license, but the appellant still faced interest charges for the intervening period. The rejection of the extension request and subsequent delay were key factors in the appellant's argument for non-liability of interest payments.

Liability for Interest Payment: The tribunal held that the appellant's failure to clear the goods promptly, despite the expiration of the warehousing period, led to the inevitable interest charges. The appellant's avoidance of duty payment until the clearance of goods under the EPCG scheme further supported the decision that interest payments were justified. The tribunal emphasized that there was no provision in the law to waive interest charges in such circumstances.

Rejection of Refund Claims and Appeal Before Commissioner (Appeals): The adjudicating authority rejected all refund claims, prompting the appellant to appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the original decision, citing the appellant's failure to comply with EPCG license conditions and timely clearance of goods. The tribunal concurred with the Commissioner's findings and upheld the impugned order, ultimately dismissing the appeal based on the High Court's decision and the Adjudicating Authority's reasoning.

In conclusion, the tribunal dismissed the appeal, upholding the impugned order due to the appellant's failure to clear goods promptly under the EPCG scheme and the consequent liability for interest payments as per the law. The rejection of refund claims and the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) were based on the appellant's inability to comply with license conditions and the timely clearance of goods, as highlighted in the detailed analysis of the judgment.