2014 (9) TMI 987 - AT - Customs

Tribunal allows refund claim, emphasizing payment under protest for customs cases

The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's appeal regarding the valuation of imported goods and penalty imposition. The subsequent refund claim by the appellant ... Refund of differential duty – Duty not paid under protest – Appellant imported consignment of mobile accessories which was inspected by SIIB and it was doubted that consignment was highly under-invoiced – Based on market enquiry value of goods were assessed and penalty and redemption fine was levied – Appellant paid differential duty and got consignment cleared – Commissioner (A) observed that it is accepted position that duty was not paid under protest and as such in absence of proof, sanction of refund was held to be bad and time barred – Held that:- Appellant have immediately protested assessment i.e. valuation assessed by Revenue by filing appeal is sufficient proof that duty was paid under protest and accordingly appellant is entitled for refund of duty and there is no question of time-bar involved – In this view of matter appeal allowed with consequential relief – Decided in favour of Assesse. Issues:1. Valuation of imported goods and imposition of penalty and redemption fine.2. Refund claim filed by the appellant and the issue of time-barred refund.Analysis:1. Valuation of imported goods and imposition of penalty and redemption fine:The appellant, an importer, imported a consignment of mobile accessories which was suspected to be under-invoiced. The market value of the goods was assessed at a higher amount than declared. The Additional Commissioner of Customs levied a penalty and redemption fine, which the appellant paid along with the differential duty to clear the consignment. The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the adjudication order and directed re-assessment following natural justice principles. The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's appeal. In the subsequent proceedings, the case was dropped, and a refund claim was filed by the appellant. The Commissioner of Customs sanctioned the refund, but a review led to an appeal by the Revenue. The issue arose regarding the timing of the refund claim and whether it was time-barred.2. Refund claim filed by the appellant and the issue of time-barred refund:The Revenue contended that the refund claim was not filed on the specified date, leading to verification by the Commissioner (Appeals). It was found that no proof of the claim being filed on the said date was available. The appellant argued that the duty was paid under protest, citing previous rulings. The Commissioner (Appeals) held that without proof of the claim being filed within six months of the appellate order, the refund was time-barred. The appellant appealed, stating that the duty was paid under protest as evidenced by the immediate filing of the appeal against the valuation. The consultant for the appellant argued for the allowance of the refund claim, emphasizing the protest against the assessment. The Tribunal considered these arguments and allowed the appeal, concluding that the duty was paid under protest, and the appellant was entitled to the refund without any time-bar implications.In conclusion, the judgment addressed the issues of valuation of imported goods, penalty imposition, redemption fine, and the time-barred refund claim. The decision highlighted the importance of proving payment under protest for refund claims and emphasized adherence to legal principles in customs matters.