2023 (11) TMI 917 - AT - Customs

Minor procedural deficiencies cannot deny CVD duty refund benefits under Notification 102/2007-Cus when endorsements clearly show compliance

CESTAT Chennai allowed the appeal for CVD duty refund under Notification No. 102/2007-Cus. The refund was initially rejected due to technical ... Refund of CVD duty (SAD) in terms of Notification No. 102/2007-Cus dated 14.9.2007 as amended - rejection on the ground that the declaration of endorsement/stamping made on the invoices are not as per the Circular issued by the Board - also alleged that sale invoices do not mention the name of the appellant herein - HELD THAT:- It is found that the refund claim is sought to be denied on technical grounds that the wordings of the endorsement made in the sales invoice are not strictly as per the Circular issued by the Board and that the sale invoices do not mention the name of the appellant on the invoice. However, there is a clear endorsement on the invoice that the goods have been imported by the consignor vide Bill of Entry No. 618526 date 24.5.2010 and that in respect of the goods no credit of additional duty of customs has been availed. Any doubts regarding the importer could have been ascertained from the details given in the BE. As per Board Circular No. 16/2008-Cus dated 13.10.2008, it has been clarified that in case of sale of imported goods by importer through consignment agent / stockist, the refund of 4% CVD shall be granted by customs field formation subject to the condition that the consignment agent / stockist has been authorized to sell the imported goods in terms of the agreement entered into between the importer and consignment agent / stockist. The minor non-compliance of procedure pointed out in the impugned order could otherwise have been verified with contemporary documents and on physical enquiry should not have led to the denial of substantial benefit especially in this era of trade facilitation - the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in CHOWGULE & COMPANY PVT LTD VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS & CENTRAL EXCISE [2014 (8) TMI 214 - CESTAT MUMBAI (LB)] has examined the similar issue and held that in respect of a commercial invoice, which shows no details of the duty paid, the question of taking of any credit would not arise at all. Therefore, non-declaration of the duty in the invoice issued itself is an affirmation that no credit would be available and would satisfy the conditions prescribed under Notification No. 102/2007-cus. Thus, the appellant is eligible for refund and it would be improper to deny the same on minor procedural grounds which are otherwise verifiable - the impugned order set aside - appeal allowed. Issues involved:The issues involved in this case are the denial of refund claim on technical grounds related to the endorsement made in the sales invoice and the absence of the appellant's name on the invoice.Refund Claim Issue:The appellant imported goods and filed refund applications for CVD duty. The original authority sanctioned the refund, but the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) set it aside due to discrepancies in the endorsement on the invoices and the absence of the appellant's name. The appellant contended that they complied with the conditions by providing necessary evidence and endorsements on the invoices. The Tribunal noted that the endorsement indicated the goods were imported by the consignor, and all conditions except minor procedural ones were met. Referring to a Board Circular, it was clarified that the refund should be granted if the consignment agent is authorized and appropriate taxes are paid. The Tribunal emphasized that the non-declaration of duty in the invoice itself signifies no credit would be available, satisfying the conditions under the relevant Notification. Therefore, the Tribunal allowed the appeal and directed the refund to be sanctioned.Judgment Summary:The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai addressed the denial of a refund claim on technical grounds in a case involving the endorsement on sales invoices and the absence of the appellant's name. The appellant had imported goods and filed for a refund of CVD duty, which was initially sanctioned but later set aside by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals). The Tribunal found that the appellant had substantially complied with the conditions for the refund, as per a Board Circular. It was noted that the non-declaration of duty in the invoice itself indicated no credit would be available, aligning with the conditions under the relevant Notification. Therefore, the Tribunal allowed the appeal and directed the refund to be sanctioned, emphasizing that minor procedural errors should not lead to the denial of substantial benefits.