2019 (11) TMI 568 - AT - Customs

Quantum of Merchant Overtime Fee Charges to the Customs Officers - benefit of N/N. 69/98-Cus. (N.T.), dated 4-9-1998 - Circular No. 101/2003-Cus., dated 5-12-2003 - appellant submits that irrespective of the number of documents required to be checked by the Customs Officers, the payments would relate only to the number of hours spent by the officer whereas Revenue submits that the above clarification issued by the Board is not in reference to the number of AREs-1 relating to each and every export but the same refers to only the number of documents in each AREs-1 which may be multiple in number. HELD THAT - There are no force in the contention of the Ld. Advocate. Admittedly, the said clarification is in respect of the number of documents of each importer/exporter in respect of the value or of the consignment. The same, nowhere, clarifies that irrespective of the number of exports consignments, the payment would still be required to be paid on the basis of the time spent by the officer. In any case, the said para 4 of the clarification relates to the services provided to the number of importers/exporters and their documents during that period and cannot be considered to be a clarification on the legal issue, i. e., Merchant Overtime Fee Charges required to be paid singly in respect of the number of AREs-1 filed by the Officers. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Dispute over quantum of Merchant Overtime Fee Charges paid by Marine Exporters for availing Customs Officers' services.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to a dispute involving Marine Exporters who availed Customs Officers' services for stuffing export consignments in their factory and the related payment of Merchant Overtime Fee Charges. The dispute revolves around the interpretation of Notification No. 69/98-Cus. (N.T.) dated 4-9-1998, specifically Serial No. 3 of the notification. The notification stipulates that fees for Customs Officers' services shall be for a minimum of three hours in each case. The appellants argue that this three-hour minimum payment is irrespective of the number of AREs-1 (export documents) handled by the officer. Conversely, the Revenue contends that the payment should be based on the number of export documents processed. The appellants rely on Circular No. 101/2003-Cus., dated 5-12-2003, which clarifies that the payment should be based on the hours spent by the officer, not the number of documents processed.

The appellants' argument is based on the interpretation that the payment for Customs Officers' services should be solely based on the time spent by the officer, as clarified in Circular No. 101/2003-Cus. The Revenue, however, argues that the circular does not refer to the number of export consignments but to the number of documents within each AREs-1, which may vary. The Tribunal, after examining the circular, concludes that it pertains to services provided to importers/exporters during a specific period and does not clarify the payment structure based on the number of consignments. The Tribunal emphasizes that the circular does not address the specific legal issue of Merchant Overtime Fee Charges based on the number of AREs-1 filed by the officers.

Ultimately, the Tribunal finds no merit in the appellants' appeals and rejects both appeals. The judgment underscores the importance of interpreting legal notifications accurately and distinguishes between administrative clarifications and legal requirements. The decision clarifies that the payment for Merchant Overtime Fee Charges should be based on the number of export documents processed, not solely on the time spent by the Customs Officers, as contended by the appellants.