2022 (3) TMI 1325 - AT - Customs

Valuation of export goods - export of goods under duty drawback scheme - enhanced valued declared - rejection of declared value - HELD THAT - There was an existing dispute with regard to valuation of the exported goods, which is relevant for the purpose of calculation of draw back. The export was allowed under provisional Let Export Order . Hence, there was an existing dispute (subjudice) between the parties, when the amount of ₹ 18,68,000 was deposited in July, 2013. Accordingly, such deposit ipso facto is in the nature of pre-deposit, which is subject to outcome of the Adjudication Order. Such amount of pre-deposit never becomes time barred, under the provisions of the Act and the same has to be refunded. The impugned order-in-appeal is upheld and the Revenue is directed to disburse the said amount of ₹ 18,68,000/- forthwith within a period of 4 weeks, with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of deposit till the date of refund - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
- Whether the Commissioner (Appeals) rightly directed to grant refund of ?18,68,000?

Analysis:
1. Valuation Dispute and Refund Claim: The case involved a dispute regarding the valuation of exported goods by M/s. S.S. Automotive Pvt. Ltd. for claiming drawback. An investigation was initiated due to suspected over-valuation, leading to provisional export approval upon execution of a bond and bank guarantee. Subsequently, an adjudication order was issued rejecting the declared value, confiscating goods, and imposing fines. The order also mentioned the deposit of ?18,68,000 as drawback by the appellant.

2. Appeal and Refund Claim: The respondent appealed against the order-in-original, which was allowed by the Commissioner (Appeals). Following this, a refund claim of ?18,68,000 was filed by the respondent, which was rejected by the Adjudicating Authority on various grounds, including lack of evidence of deposit and failure to establish entitlement for refund.

3. Nature of Deposit and Time Bar: The Commissioner (Appeals) observed that the deposited amount was in the nature of pre-deposit and granted the refund, disagreeing with the Revenue's argument of the claim being time-barred. The Revenue contended that the claim was filed after a significant delay and the amount was not a valid pre-deposit under the Customs Act.

4. Tribunal Decision: The Tribunal upheld the order-in-appeal, emphasizing that the deposit made in July 2013 was in the nature of pre-deposit due to the existing valuation dispute. Such pre-deposit does not become time-barred and is subject to refund based on the outcome of the adjudication order. The Tribunal directed the Revenue to disburse the refund amount of ?18,68,000 along with 12% interest per annum from the date of deposit till the date of refund, citing relevant legal precedents.

5. Conclusion: The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, affirming the entitlement of the respondent to the refund amount. The decision highlighted the nature of the deposit, the absence of time limitation for pre-deposits in such cases, and the obligation of the Revenue to refund the amount with interest.