9911796707
TMI Blog1984 (9) TMI 53X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iers and the petitioners, the petitioners imported 764 Metric Tons of Alloy Steel Scrap. Upon importation of the goods, the petitioners filed in all 26 Bills of Entries with the Customs authorities for clearance of the goods for home consumption. The goods were described on the Bills of Entries as "Alloy Steel Scrap" assessable to customs duty under Tariff Entry 73.03/05. The petitioners are liable to pay basic customs duty at the rate of 30% ad valorem, auxiliary duty at the rate of 5% and countervailing duty at the rate of 225/- per Metric Ton. The Customs Department purported to classify the goods under Tariff Heading 73.15(1) and 73.15(2) and in some cases under Tariff Item 73.17/19(1) instead of 73.03/05. The petitioners were, therefor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as claimed by the petitioners. The learned Judge directed the respondents to refund the amount along with interest at the rate of 12% for the period commencing from the date of filing of the refund application till the date of repayment. The learned Judge held that the respondents have unjustly and unwarrantly retained the petitioner's moneys. The learned Judge observed: "It would be idle to ignore the fact that business concerns, such as the petitioners, operate upon advances from Banks and pay interest at rates exceeding 12%. Being deprived of the use of moneys due to them is bad enough; there seems to me no good reason to make them forego interest at a reasonable rate. This is a case where it is fit and proper that the respondents sh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ween November 1981 to January 1982. The respondents refunded the amount of Rs. 77,52,145.72 almost one year thereafter i.e. between January 1983 and February 17, 1983. Shri Dhanuka submits that the entire consignment consisted of 764 Metric Tons and in respect of some of the Bills of Entries out of 26 filed by the petitioners, this Court has directed the respondents to refund the amount along with interest at the rate of 12% from the date of refund application till the date of repayment and there is no rational or logic why the same rule should not be applied in respect of the remaining refund applications. In my judgment, the submission is correct and deserves acceptance. As mentioned hereinabove, the learned Judge has pointed out that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Shri Dalal suggested that the claim of interest was not granted by the Department to the petitioners while awarding refund of amount and, therefore the petitioners should have made the claim in the earlier petition. I enquired from the learned Counsel as to what prejudice is caused to the respondents by not making such a claim in the earlier petition, and the learned Counsel has no answer. The refund amount was paid by the Department to the petitioners even before filing the petition and by now directing the respondents to pay the amount of interest on that refund amount from the date of refund application to the date of repayment would cause no prejudice whatsoever to the respondents on the ground that such a demand should have been made i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
