2014 (12) TMI 726 - CGOVT - Customs

Government upholds Customs Commissioner's decision on duty refund, interest payment, and warehouse charges

The government rejected the revision application challenging the Order-in-Appeal by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Chennai. The applicant's claims ... Illegal sale of confiscated gold - smuggle gold bars and coins - Refund of sale proceeds - applicant has contended that since the goods have disposed of hence duty cannot be collected; that the interest of 9% per annum for the sale proceeds be paid for delayed payment and warehousing charges may be re-fixed - whether the refund has to be paid without deducting the duty as claimed by the applicant or not. Held that:- In view of judgment in the case of CC, Trichy v. K. Balaganesan [2011 (5) TMI 393 - CESTAT, CHENNAI], applicant’s refund claim for duty portion is rightly rejected by appellate Commissioner. As regards interest claim, Government notes that Section 27A of Customs Act grants interest on delayed refund of duty. In this case amount of sale proceeds are refunded and therefore provisions of Section 27A of Customs Act, 1962 are not attracted. Government also notes that excess warehouse charges of ₹ 18,880/- are already ordered to be refunded - Government do not find any infirmity in the impugned Order-in-Appeal and therefore upholds the same - Decided against assessee. Issues:1. Appeal against the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Chennai.2. Refund claim of duty amount and interest on delayed payment.3. Re-fixing of warehouse charges.Analysis:1. The applicant attempted to smuggle gold bars and coins, leading to confiscation and penalty. Appeals were made to CESTAT, resulting in a reduction of redemption fine and personal penalty. The department disposed of the gold and the applicant sought a refund, which was partially granted by the adjudicating authority. The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed refund of warehouse charges. The revision application raised issues of duty refund, interest payment, and warehouse charges re-fixation.2. The applicant contended that duty cannot be collected once goods are disposed of, citing relevant case laws. The Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the duty refund claim based on legal precedents and noted that interest under Section 27A of the Customs Act does not apply as sale proceeds were refunded. The excess warehouse charges were ordered to be refunded, and the government upheld the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) on these matters.3. The government reviewed all issues raised in the revision application and noted that they were previously considered by the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) addressed the main issue of duty refund, relying on legal judgments and finding the applicant's claim unsubstantiated. The government concurred with the Commissioner (Appeals) on the duty refund, interest claim, and warehouse charges, ultimately upholding the Order-in-Appeal.In conclusion, the revision application was rejected by the government for lacking merit, as the issues raised were thoroughly examined by the Commissioner (Appeals) and found to be unsubstantiated based on legal interpretations and precedents.