2017 (11) TMI 703 - AT - Customs

Refund claim - Relinquishment of title of goods - prohibited goods - Held that - as provided under Sub-section 2 of Section 23 of the Customs Act, 1962, the law did not allow respondent to relinquish his title to said goods since the said goods were found to be mis-declared. Further, the goods brought into were prohibited, since they did not have environmental clearance for importation of the same and, therefore, the goods had violated the provisions of Section 11 of Customs Act, 1962 - In view of 2nd proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 26-A of the Customs Act, 1962, the said refund was not admissible to the respondent - appeal allowed - decided in favor of Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Classification of imported goods under Chapter Heading No.72044900.
2. Confiscation and redemption of imported goods under Section 111 (d) and 111 (m) of the Customs Act, 1962.
3. Rejection of refund claim by Assistant Commissioner.
4. Appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) and subsequent decision.

Issue 1: The case involved the classification of imported goods under Chapter Heading No.72044900, specifically 204.030 MT of Heavy Melting Scrap (HMS). The goods were physically examined, revealing misdeclaration as the composition did not match the description on import documents, leading to classification as slag under Chapter 26 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975.

Issue 2: The Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise ordered confiscation of the goods under Section 111 (d) and 111 (m) of the Customs Act, 1962, with an option for redemption on payment of a fine for re-export. The goods were allowed for home consumption upon payment of redemption fine, subject to approval from the Ministry of Environment and Forests (MOEF), with a penalty imposed on the importer.

Issue 3: The Assistant Commissioner rejected the importer's refund claim, noting that they had not exercised any of the options given by the adjudicating authority. The claim was based on the importer's plea of being cheated by the overseas supplier and the goods having nominal value, leading to a request for reduction in the value of the imported goods.

Issue 4: The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeal, stating that the claim cannot be rejected as premature solely because the options were not exercised. The decision was subject to verification of documents and compliance with Customs Act provisions. However, the Revenue appealed against this decision, arguing that the importer could not relinquish the title of the goods due to misdeclaration and lack of environmental clearance, making the refund inadmissible.

The Tribunal set aside the Order-in-Appeal, allowing the Revenue's appeal. The decision was based on the Customs Act provisions, specifically Sub-section 2 of Section 23, which did not permit the importer to relinquish the title of the goods due to misdeclaration. The refund was deemed inadmissible under the 2nd proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 26-A. The assistance provided by the Amicus-curie was appreciated, and the appeal was allowed in favor of the Revenue.