2016 (11) TMI 678 - AT - Customs

Customs Tribunal: Steel Rods vs. Scrap Classification Appeal Decision

The Customs Appellate Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's classification of imported goods as prime quality steel rods instead of heavy melting scrap, ... Refund - Unjust enrichment - Benefit of duty exemption in terms of Customs Notification No.21/2002 - end-use certificate - Held that: - I am of the considered opinion that both the authorities have not given any reason for not accepting the certificate issued by the Chartered Accountant and the Cost Accountant and they have not given any reason as to why the same is not material for deciding the question of unjust enrichment. In view of this, I am of the considered opinion that this case needs to be remanded back to the adjudicating authority with a direction to consider both the certificates issued by the Chartered Accountant and the Cost Accountant and pass a reasoned order. Before passing the order, the adjudicating authority will afford a reasonable opportunity to the appellant who will also be at liberty to produce any other document in support of their claim. The adjudicating authority is directed to dispose of the claim within a period of three months after receipt of the certified copy of this order. Issues:1. Classification of imported goods under Customs Tariff2. Benefit of duty exemption under Customs Notification3. Confiscation and penalty under Customs Act4. Refund of penalty and duty under unjust enrichment doctrineClassification of Imported Goods:The appellant filed two Bills of Entry claiming duty exemption under Customs Notification No.21/2002 for goods classified under heading 7204 of Customs Tariff. However, upon examination, it was found that the goods were prime quality steel rods instead of heavy melting scrap. The Commissioner of Customs classified the goods under heading 7214, imposed applicable duty, and ordered confiscation under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962. The appellant challenged this decision before CESTAT, which upheld the Commissioner's order but remanded the case to consider the proviso to Section 120(2) of the Customs Act, 1962.Confiscation and Penalty:Subsequently, the Commissioner of Customs confiscated a portion of the goods and imposed a redemption fine and penalty under Sections 111(m) and 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962, respectively. The appellant filed a refund application for penalty and duty, which was partially granted by the Assistant Commissioner. However, the duty amount was credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund on the grounds of unjust enrichment, as it was not conclusively proved that the excess duty was not passed on to others. The appellant appealed this decision before the Commissioner (A), who dismissed the appeal, leading to the present appeal.Refund under Unjust Enrichment Doctrine:The appellant contended that the refusal to refund duty by invoking the doctrine of unjust enrichment was incorrect and illegal. They produced certificates from a Chartered Accountant and a Cost Accountant stating that the refund claim was not passed on to anyone else and did not influence the manufactured product's value. The authorities did not consider these certificates adequately. The tribunal found that the authorities failed to provide reasons for rejecting the certificates and directed a remand to the adjudicating authority to reconsider the certificates and allow the appellant to produce additional supporting documents, if necessary, within three months.This detailed analysis of the judgment covers the issues related to the classification of imported goods, confiscation and penalty under the Customs Act, and the refund of penalty and duty under the doctrine of unjust enrichment.