2002 (7) TMI 133 - AT - Customs

Customs Tribunal: Appeal Route for Clearance Orders & Refunds, Importer's Post-Clearance Responsibilities

The Tribunal emphasized that orders permitting clearance under Section 47 of the Customs Act are subject to challenge only through the appeal route. It ... Remission of duty Issues involved:1. Jurisdiction of adjudicating authorities to decide on clearance of imported goods under Sections 46 and 47 of the Customs Act, 1962.2. Permissibility of accepting refund applications after clearance of goods under Section 47.3. Remission of duty under Section 23 for goods lost before clearance.4. Applicability of appeal route for refund of duties assessed and paid under Section 47.Detailed Analysis:1. The appeal raised concerns regarding the jurisdiction of adjudicating authorities in deciding cases related to the clearance of imported goods under Sections 46 and 47 of the Customs Act, 1962. The appellant argued that orders permitting clearance under Section 47 are final and can only be challenged through an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). The appellant cited various case laws to support their position. The Tribunal examined the provisions of the Act and emphasized that the order permitting clearance under Section 47 is an order of adjudication and can only be challenged through the appeal route. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, highlighting the necessity of following the proper procedure for challenging such orders.2. The issue of permissibility of accepting refund applications after the clearance of goods under Section 47 was raised in the appeal. The appellant contended that once goods are cleared under Section 47, accepting refund applications for duty assessed in the Bill of Entry is not permissible. The Tribunal examined the arguments presented and emphasized that discrepancies should be addressed before the final out of charge is given under Section 47. The responsibility for goods after clearance lies with the importer, and the Tribunal highlighted the importer's obligation to take care of goods in their possession. The Tribunal concluded that accepting refund applications post-clearance is not permissible under Section 47.3. The appeal also addressed the remission of duty under Section 23 for goods lost before clearance. The Tribunal discussed the scenario of goods lost after landing but before clearance and highlighted the provisions under Section 23 for remission of duty in such cases. The Tribunal emphasized that the assessment orders under Section 47 are crucial in determining losses, and remission under Section 23 can be granted if the parameters are met. The Tribunal rejected the interpretation that would defeat the purpose of second check assessments provided under the Act.4. The issue of the applicability of the appeal route for refund of duties assessed and paid under Section 47 was discussed in the appeal. The appellant argued that refunds of duties assessed and paid under Section 47 should not be subject to the appeal route. The Tribunal analyzed the provisions related to assessment, remission of duty under Section 23, and the implementation of refunds. The Tribunal concluded that the benefit of Section 23 refund/remission of duty could be granted without necessarily following the appeal route proposed by the appellant. The Tribunal found no merit in insisting on a review order under Section 47 for claims under Section 23, ultimately dismissing the appeal filed by the Revenue.