2011 (10) TMI 112 - AT - Customs

Appellate Tribunal Upholds Denial of Refund Claim for Imported Goods

The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, New Delhi, upheld the denial of a refund claim by appellants who imported goods for the Indian Navy but failed to declare ... Notification No. 39/06 - appellants imported Caris Marine GIS-CDs and documentation for Indian Navy - Bill of Entry, the appellants have never declared that goods are meant for Indian Navy - filed a refund claim - on the ground that the said goods were meant for Indian Navy and so they were entitled to concessional rate of duty in terms of notification - produced duty exemption certificate from National Hydrographic office - Decided that subsequent filing of refund claim, without putting the Bill of Entry to challenge, is against the law - As in tha case of Priya Blue Industries [2004 -TMI - 47045 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] - Appeal rejected Issues:1. Failure to declare goods for concessional rate of duty under Notification No. 39/06.2. Denial of refund claim for duty exemption certificate from National Hydrographic office.3. Contention regarding procedural lapse in production of certificate subsequent to clearance.Analysis:The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, New Delhi, involved a case where the appellants imported goods for the Indian Navy but failed to declare them as such to avail the concessional rate of duty under Notification No. 39/06. The appellants filed a Bill of Entry without claiming the benefit of the notification, resulting in the assessment of duty and subsequent payment. Later, they sought a refund based on the goods being meant for the Indian Navy and produced a duty exemption certificate from the National Hydrographic office. However, the refund claim was denied by the lower authorities, leading to the appeal.The appellants argued that the failure to produce the requisite certificate before clearance was a procedural lapse that should be overlooked. On the contrary, the revenue contended that since the benefit of the notification was not claimed initially, and the assessed Bill of Entry was not challenged through an appeal, the rejection of the refund was justified. The Tribunal supported the revenue's stance, emphasizing that the appellants did not claim the notification's benefit during the assessment of the Bill of Entry, as required by law.The Tribunal referenced a legal precedent set by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Priya Blue Industries, highlighting that subsequent filing of a refund claim without challenging the assessed Bill of Entry is contrary to established legal principles. Consequently, the Tribunal found no merit in the appellants' argument and rejected the appeal, affirming the denial of the refund claim. The judgment was pronounced in open court, concluding the case.