2011 (1) TMI 733 - AT - Customs

Tribunal Upholds Decision on Duty Refund Appeal Due to Typographical Error

M/s Igus India Pvt. Ltd., Versus Commissioner of Customs, Bangalore.

The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision to reject the appellant's refund claim for excess duty paid due to a typographical error in the invoice ... Refund claim - Excess amount of duty was paid on account of incorrect mentioning of unit price as 9.9 Euro instead of actual unit price of 0.30 Euro - To substantiate their claim appellant produced revised Invoice bearing No. 8548350 dated 13.4.05 issued by the supplier of the goods - They also claimed that the mistake was due to clerical error and could be corrected as per Section 154 of Customs Act, 1962 and requested for refund - The provisions of Section 149 of the Customs Act would not apply to this case, as that section clearly mandates for correcting arithmetical error based upon the document at the time of clearance - Since the document was produced subsequent to the clearance, the provisions of Section 149 of the Customs Act cannot be invoked - Decided against the assessee. Issues:Refund claim based on typographical error in invoice value, Applicability of Sections 149 and 154 of Customs Act, 1962, Interpretation of relevant legal precedents.Analysis:The appeal was filed against an Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Bangalore, concerning an import where excess duty was paid due to a typographical error in the unit price on the invoice. The appellant claimed a refund of the excess duty paid. The Assistant Commissioner of Customs rejected the refund claim, stating that Section 154 of the Customs Act, 1962, did not apply, and the assessment could not be reviewed based on the Priya Blue Industries Ltd. case. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the rejection, leading to the current appeal.The appellant argued that a typographical error was acknowledged by the supplier in a letter to the Customs authority. They contended that the error should be corrected under Section 154 and cited a relevant case law. The JDR opposed, stating that Section 149 could not be invoked as the correction document was not available during import and referenced the Priya Blue Industries Ltd. case.The Tribunal analyzed the submissions and records, noting that the correction document was received post-clearance, making Section 149 inapplicable. It was observed that the appellant did not contest the initial assessment. Citing the Priya Blue Industries Ltd. case, the Tribunal concluded that the impugned order was valid, as the judgment covered the issue. Consequently, the appeal for a refund was rejected.This judgment clarifies the application of Sections 149 and 154 of the Customs Act, 1962, in cases of typographical errors in invoices post-clearance. It underscores the importance of challenging assessments promptly and the limitations on invoking corrective provisions after clearance. The decision also highlights the significance of legal precedents in determining the outcome of appeals related to duty refunds based on clerical errors.