Tribunal allows appeal for correction of clerical error in assessment order under Customs Act Section 154.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, finding merit in the appellant's argument for correction of a clerical error in the assessment order under Section 154 of the Customs Act. The Tribunal held that the claim was maintainable as it pertained to correcting the currency of payment without challenging the assessment order on merits. The matter was remanded for reconsideration of the refund claim, with the appellant required to show that the duty burden had not been passed on to customers, in accordance with the principle of unjust enrichment.

---

---

Issues: Appeal against rejection of claim due to alleged failure to challenge assessment order, correction of clerical error in assessment order, applicability of Section 154 of Customs Act, unjust enrichment principle in refund claims.

Summary:
The appellant filed an appeal against the rejection of their claim, arguing that they were not challenging the assessment order but seeking correction of a clerical error. They contended that the actual freight was paid in Danish Kroner, not US $, and cited Section 154 of the Customs Act for correction of such errors. The appellant referenced the decision in the case of Goa Shipyard Ltd. v. CC and Keshari Steels v. Collector to support their argument.

The Revenue opposed the claim, stating that since the appellant did not challenge the assessment order, the claim was not maintainable. They also invoked the principle of unjust enrichment, citing the decision in the case of Sahakari Khand Udyog Mandal Ltd. v. CCE.

The Tribunal noted that the appellant's sole contention was the correction of a clerical error regarding the currency of payment. Referring to the decision in Keshari Steels, the Tribunal held that correction of clerical errors falls under Section 154 of the Customs Act, entitling importers to refunds once corrected. As the appellant was not challenging the assessment order on merits, the Tribunal found merit in their contention and deemed the impugned order unsustainable.

Regarding the refund claim, the Tribunal reiterated the principle of unjust enrichment as per the decision in Sahakari Khand Udyog Mandal Ltd. The matter was remanded to the adjudicating authority for reconsideration of the claim on its merits, with the onus on the appellant to demonstrate that the burden of duty had not been passed on to their customers. The appeal was disposed of by way of remand.

---