2010 (7) TMI 372 - AT - Customs

Refund Claim Rejection Upheld: Time-Barred, Lacking Merit

The Tribunal upheld the rejection of the refund claim due to being time-barred and lacking merit. The duty paid was considered as customs duty, falling ... Refund – Limitation – Re-export of re-imported goods – appellant submitted that since the duty paid was equal to excise duty, the limitation of 6 months under the Customs Act, 1962 should not be applied but the time-limit of one year for refund provided under the Excise Law should be applied - appellants is not acceptable as the duty which was collected was the customs duty, the amount was only determined equal to the excise duty, but the nature of duty remained the customs duty - refund of such customs duty paid by the appellants, the provisions of Customs Law is applicable and not that of Central Excise Law - refund claim was hit by time bar Issues: Refund claim rejection on the grounds of time bar and lack of meritTime Bar Issue Analysis:The appellants exported 'brake drums' which were later re-imported and subsequently re-exported. They paid customs duty equal to the excise duty chargeable on the drums during re-importation. The refund claim for this duty was rejected by the authorities as it was filed beyond the 6-month time limit stipulated under the Customs Act, 1962. The appellants argued that the one-year time limit for refund under the Excise Law should apply since the duty paid was equal to excise duty. However, the Tribunal held that the duty collected was customs duty, even though the amount was determined to be equal to excise duty. Therefore, the Customs Law's provisions for refund apply, and the claim was rightly rejected as time-barred.Merit Issue Analysis:The Tribunal also considered the merit of the refund claim. It was found that the appellants had indeed paid the applicable customs duty during re-importation. However, the subsequent re-export did not entitle them to a refund of the duty paid. The Tribunal noted that the appellants could have claimed a drawback of the duty paid on the re-imported goods upon subsequent re-export. Therefore, the refund claim was deemed not maintainable both on merit and due to the time bar. The appeal was dismissed, but the appellants were advised to claim any admissible drawback if applicable.In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the rejection of the refund claim on the grounds of both time bar and lack of merit. The nature of the duty paid was determined to be customs duty, making the Customs Law provisions applicable for refund. The appellants were advised to explore claiming a drawback instead.