2018 (11) TMI 189 - AT - Customs

Refund of Export Duty paid - rejection of refund on the ground of the let-export order was given on 03.12.2008, the benefit of Notification No 129/2008-Cus is not applicable and also on the ground that the assessments were not challenged - Held that - The documents enclosed herein also do not indicate whether the goods were cleared for shipment on 03.12.2008 or 08.12.2008. On a specific query from the Bench both sides were unable to state as to whether the said shipping bill was finalised by the proper officer or otherwise - the said shipping bill with the endorsement of the remarks as herein reproduced would indicate that the said shipping bill is still provisional. As long as the same is not finalised, the question of refund or otherwise may not arise. Matter needs to be reconsidered by adjudicating authority - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
Whether the 1st Appellate Authority was correct in setting aside the order-in-original that rejected the refund claim filed by the respondent.

Analysis:
The case involves a dispute over the eligibility for a refund claim filed by the respondent regarding the export of iron ores. The appellant argued that the let-export order was given on 03.12.2008, making them ineligible for the benefit of a customs duty exemption issued on 07.12.2008. The 1st Appellate Authority, however, concluded that the shipping bill was endorsed for export on 08.12.2008, entitling the appellant to the benefit of the exemption. The appellant contended that the assessment date should determine the duty rate, citing relevant provisions of the Customs Act 1962 and previous court decisions. The appellant also argued that the assessment of the shipping bill on 03.12.2008 was provisional due to pending price adjustments and chemical examiners' tests, making the finalization delayed until after the exemption came into effect.

The Tribunal observed that the crucial issue revolved around whether the goods were cleared for export on 03.12.2008 or 08.12.2008, determining the appellant's eligibility for the exemption. The adjudicating authority had initially rejected the refund claim, stating it was premature and not maintainable, as the goods were assessed on 03.12.2008. In contrast, the 1st Appellate Authority held that the shipping bill was endorsed for shipment on 08.12.2008, making the appellant eligible for the refund under the exemption. However, the Tribunal noted discrepancies in the assessment finalization process and lack of clarity on the clearance date of the goods. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the previous orders and remitted the case back to the adjudicating authority for reconsideration to determine the finalization status of the shipping bill and allow the appellant to present supporting documents for their claim.

In conclusion, the Tribunal emphasized the provisional nature of the shipping bill assessment and the need for a thorough reconsideration by the adjudicating authority to ensure a fair decision based on the principles of natural justice. The case was remitted for further examination without expressing any opinion on the merits, highlighting the importance of proper assessment finalization and clarity on the clearance date for resolving the refund claim issue effectively.