9911796707
TMI Blog1987 (11) TMI 83X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n June 1981 to August 1981 the imported goods were re-inspected in accordance with the directions of the Collector. According to the importer, the goods were liable to be assessed under Tariff Item No. 73.03/05 and liable to basic customs duty at the rate of 30% ad valorem, auxiliary duty at the rate of 5% and additional duty at the rate of Rs. 225/- per metric tonne. The Customs authorities, however, assessed the goods under Tariff Item 73.15(0(2) and 73.17/19(1) and the basic duty was determined at the rate of Rs. 325/- per metric tonne. According to the importer, the correct amount of duty was Rs. 25,49,834.60, while according to the Customs authorities duty payable was Rs. 1,29,037.77. As the importer was keen to seek clearance at an early date, the duty as demanded by the Customs authorities was paid under protest between June and August 1981. The Customs authorities also imposed a fine of Rs. 13,20,500/- for breach of the import regulations as it was the claim of the Customs authorities that what was imported was not scrap but alloy in various forms. 3. The importer filed 26 refund applications between November 21, 1981 and January 1982 claiming that the duty charged by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of nine bills of entries by no stretch of imagination could have been denied. In respect of the remaining seven bills of entries, the Customs authorities refunded a part of the amount. The total amount of refund sought in respect of these seven bills of entries was Rs. 27,20,956.63 and the refund granted was to the tune of Rs. 25,13,365.99 leaving behind balance of Rs. 2,07,590.64. As regards these seven bills of entries, the importer claimed that the goods imported were identical as those covered by other nine bills of entries, while the Department claimed that part of the goods covered by the seven bills of entries was not scrap but alloy in different forms. The learned single Judge did not accept the claim of the respondents even in respect of the seven bills of entries. The learned Judge further found that the fine of Rs. 13,20,500/- imposed on the importer was wholly unsustainable. The learned Judge felt that the amount should be refunded along with interest at the rate of 12%, and on the strength of this finding the following operative order came to be passed :- "In the result, the impugned order, dated 23rd March, 1983 is quashed and set aside. A writ shall issue to the re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in different forms, like rods, bars, flats, billets etc. we inquired from the learned counsel as to what is the basis on which this assertion is made because it was claimed by the importer all along that the goods imported under 26 bills of entries were identical. Shri Shah referred us to the observation made by the learned single Judge that the impugned order (that is order passed by the Assistant Collector declining refund) suggest that some of the goods covered by these seven bills of entries were not of the kind the petitioners claimed. We are afraid that the observation made by the learned single Judge is not very accurate. We called upon Shri Shah to point out anything from the impugned order, dated February 23, 1983 of the Assistant Collector of Customs to sustain the observation made by the learned single Judge and Shri Shah very fairly stated that there is no such suggestion in the entire order. Shri Shah then submitted that the endorsement made on the bills of entries after reinspection as directed by the Collector would indicate the nature of the goods. The submission was correct, and therefore, we called upon Shri Shah to produce for our examination the six bills of en ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... till realisation. Second submission is that the learned Judge should not have deprived the importer of interest on the amount of Rs. 2,07,590.64 which was the balance amount of refund due in respect of seven bills of entries. The third submission is that the learned Judge should have awarded interest at the rate of 18% per annum and not only at the rate of 12%. As regards, the last submission about the quantum of rate of interest, we are unable to accede to the submission of Shri Dhanuka. It was the discretion of the learned trial Judge to decide as to what should be the rate of interest, and it is not permissible for the appeal court to disturb that discretion unless there are sound reasons to do so. In our judgment, it cannot be suggested that the rate determined at the rate of 12% per annum was so low as requires interference in the appeal. The claim of the importer for award of interest at the rate of 18% per annum therefore, must be turned down. The submission of Shri Dhanuka that the learned Judge ought to have granted interest from the date of payment till realisation deserves acceptance. As mentioned hereinabove the correct duty payable was Rs. 25,49,834.60 while the duty ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
