2019 (3) TMI 453 - AT - Customs

Importers Granted Refund for Duty Overpayment Without Challenging Assessment

The Tribunal allowed the appeals, emphasizing the statutory provision allowing refund for duty borne by the importer, even without challenging the ... Refund claims - price variation clause - transaction value determined after importation due to annual discount/quantity rebate, determined after end of the contract period - rejection on the ground that the assessments are final and as such, refund claims are not maintainable - Held that:- Tribunal in the case of Commissioner of Customs (Export) New Delhi Vs. Lalit Kumar [2017 (1) TMI 7 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] has held that refund claim of the appellant was maintainable under Section 27 of the Customs Act and the non-filing of the appeal against the assessed bill of entry does not deprive the appellant to file its claim for refund under Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962 - refund allowed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. Issues:Refund claims rejection based on finality of assessments without challenging the bill of entry assessment.Analysis:The case involved Misc. Applications for early hearing of Cus. Appeal Nos.75850-75862/18 against Orders-in-Appeal Nos.47-59/CUS/CCP-GST/2017. The appellants imported Rock Phosphate under contracts with overseas suppliers containing price variation clauses. Duty was paid on the higher price per Bill of Lading, with subsequent reduction due to annual discounts/quantity rebates. Refund claims were rejected as assessments were final. The Tribunal considered the factual aspects, noting the reduction in value post-contract period, leading to duty overpayment. The Assistant Commissioner relied on previous judgments, holding that not challenging the bill of entry assessment barred refund claims. However, the Tribunal cited a case where a refund claim was allowed despite not challenging the assessment, emphasizing the statutory provision allowing refund for duty borne by the importer. The Tribunal differentiated cases where assessments were disputed, ruling in favor of the appellants' refund claims. The impugned orders were set aside, and the appeals were allowed.In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeals, emphasizing the statutory provision allowing refund for duty borne by the importer, even without challenging the assessment. The decision highlighted the distinction between cases where assessments were disputed and cases like the present one, where duty overpayment occurred due to subsequent price adjustments. The impugned orders rejecting the refund claims based on finality of assessments were set aside, granting relief to the appellants.