2024 (7) TMI 324 - AT - Customs

Refund of the duty paid for the said consignment twice i.e. both at Mumbai (from where the cargo was cleared) and at Calcutta airport air cargo (where the consignment did not even arrive and duty was erroneously paid) - HELD THAT - The department instead of seeking report from their other section like Appraising/Docks etc. have entered into correspondence with the importer asking them to obtain a report/certificate from the concerned appraising group regarding cancellation of the Bill of Entry. It is a fact on record that the EDI system automatically purges those Bills of Entry where no cargo is arrived. Thus, in this case too the said Bill of Entry ought to have been automatically got cancelled through the system. It is also noted that the appellant had also furnished to the department copy of the bank certificate by way of proof of payment of duty at Kolkata, along with documentary evidence evidencing the duty payment and clearance of imported goods at Mumbai. On the next date of hearing the Ld.Jt.CDR after having enquired and verified from the Customs Docks at Kolkata brought to our notice that it is a fact on record that the goods have not arrived as there was no examination report and no IGM number was assigned to the subject Bill of Entry. An EDI print out dated 20.06.2024 of the Bill of Entry which has been presented before us at the time of hearing was also tendered, leaving no doubt that no import has taken place against the subject Bill of Entry and that no Cargo has arrived thereto and that an amount of Rs.12,00,014.1/-, was paid thereto. This amount is certainly not due to the government and has been wrongly paid on 24.06.2013. The order of the lower authority is set aside and the appeal filed by the appellant is allowed.

Summary

Issues involved:
Refund of duty paid twice for the same consignment imported at Mumbai and Kolkata airports.

Analysis:
1. The appellant filed an appeal against the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Kolkata, regarding the inadvertent filing of 2 Bills of Entry for one consignment. The appellant imported a Pressure Roller Torch against Master Air Way Bill from Mumbai, but also filed a Bill of Entry at Kolkata Air Cargo for the same consignment. Duty was paid at both Mumbai and Kolkata. The issue revolves around seeking a refund for the duty paid twice.

2. The appellant explained that the error occurred due to incorrect information on the freight bill, which wrongly depicted Kolkata as the final destination. The department did not dispute the duty payment at Kolkata, acknowledging the mistake of paying duty twice for goods that were actually imported at Mumbai. The lower authorities rejected the refund claim citing missing documents, but the appellant had submitted all necessary documents, including invoice, packing list, and purchase order.

3. The Tribunal observed that the department failed to consider the submitted documents and unnecessarily prolonged the matter by requesting additional reports. The EDI system confirmed that no import had taken place against the Bill of Entry filed at Kolkata, and no cargo arrived, leading to the conclusion that the duty paid at Kolkata was erroneous. The Tribunal set aside the lower authority's decision and allowed the appeal, directing for consequential relief as per law.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key arguments, evidence, and findings related to the issue of refunding duty paid twice for the same consignment imported at Mumbai and Kolkata airports.