2024 (9) TMI 1502 - HC - Customs

Extra Duty Deposit amounts are refundable deposits under Section 12, not customs duty

M/s. Nittan India Tech Pvt. Ltd. Versus The Deputy Commissioner of Customs (Refund), Chennai

The HC set aside the customs authority's rejection of the petitioner's refund claim for Extra Duty Deposit (EDD). The court held that amounts collected ... Rejection of Extra Duty Deposit (EDD) paid by the petitioner as refund claim - time barred in terms of Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962 - HELD THAT:- There is no justification in the impugned order passed by the respondent rejecting the request of the petitioner for refund of the amount paid by the petitioner pursuant to Circular No.11/2001-Cus dated 23.02.2001 of the Central Board of Indirect Taxes. The amount that was collected by the Assessing Officer in view of the Special Valuation Branch (SVB) proceedings are nothing to deposit and not a customs duty as is contemplated under Section 12 of the Customs Act, 1962, although such deposit were eligible to be appropriated towards the duty liability of the petitioner after final assessment of the Bill of Entry - As such, amount that has been calculated over and above the tax duty payable by the petitioner is to be refunded back only after the Bill of Entries filed are finally assessed and assessment is completed. Needless to state, such refund will be subject to the petitioner satisfying that there will be no unjust enrichment on account of refund in terms of Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962. The impugned order is set aside with consequential relief. The respondents are directed to complete the proceedings within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order - Petition allowed. Issues:Challenge to Order-in-Original rejecting Extra Duty Deposit refund claim based on limitation under Customs Act, 1962. Contrary views on refund claim for imported goods. Nature of Extra Duty Deposit. Violation of principles of natural justice in passing the impugned order.Analysis:The petitioner challenged the Order-in-Original rejecting the Extra Duty Deposit (EDD) refund claim of Rs. 1,16,71,430 based on limitation under Section 27(1) of the Customs Act, 1962. The impugned order cited that the refund claim was time-barred as it was filed after the finalization of Bills of Entry between 2016 to 2018. The respondent rejected the claim despite a virtual Personal Hearing offered on 26.04.2021. The impugned order relied on Section 27(1)(1B)(c) of the Customs Act, 1962, which sets the limitation period for refund claims. The petitioner contended that the impugned order contradicted established legal precedents, including decisions by the Madras and Karnataka High Courts.The petitioner imported goods from its parent company, triggering investigations by the Special Valuation Branch (SVB). The SVB concluded that the imports had no impact on the transaction value of the goods. The petitioner paid EDD as required under Circular No.11/2001-Cus. Refund applications for imports between April 2014 to March 2016 were approved, but the claim for goods imported between April 2016 to July 2017 was rejected as time-barred. The petitioner argued that EDD is a deposit, not customs duty, citing legal precedents such as Commissioner of Customs, Chennai Vs. Aristo Spinners Pvt. Ltd. The petitioner highlighted various court decisions to support their case.The respondent justified the rejection of the refund claim by referring to a Tribunal decision and asserting that EDD is collected at the time of provisional assessment and adjusted later. The respondent suggested that refund claims related to Duty Deposit should be processed under Section 26 of the Customs Act, 1962. The respondent also pointed out the availability of an alternate remedy before the Appellate Commissioner. The petitioner contended that the respondent's view for a different period was unjustified.The Court set aside the impugned order, emphasizing that the amount collected during SVB proceedings was a deposit, not customs duty. The Court directed the completion of proceedings within six months, ensuring no unjust enrichment upon refund. The Court also noted a violation of principles of natural justice in passing the impugned order and allowed the writ petition with no costs, closing the connected miscellaneous petition.