2025 (8) TMI 100 - AT - Customs

CESTAT Allows Refund of Extra Duty Deposit Collected Post-Clearance, Citing Section 27 Limitations Do Not Apply

The CESTAT Mumbai allowed the appeal and set aside the order rejecting the refund of extra duty deposit (EDD) collected as security under Board Circular ... Recovery of additional customs duty - extra duty deposited of 1% collected as per Board circular while undertaking valuation by SVB is held to be security by Central Board of Excise and Customs through circular No. 5/2016-Cus. dated 09.02.2016 - Rejection of refund on the ground of time limitation - HELD THAT:- The amount sought to be refunded was the amount collected by Revenue in the form of extra duty deposit after the goods were finally cleared on payment of duty. Therefore, by no stretch of imagination the said deposit can be called as customs duty. Further it is found that Hon’ble Delhi High Court has dealt with the same issue in their ruling in the case of Sentec India Company Pvt. Ltd. [2025 (3) TMI 75 - DELHI HIGH COURT]. It is clear from the ruling by Hon’ble Delhi High Court that in respect of amount collected by Revenue in the form of EDD, period of limitation under Section 27 of Customs Act is not applicable. The impugned order is set aside and Revenue is directed to refund Rs.6,81,839/- within a period of one month from the date of issue of this order, along with applicable interest on the same. Appeal allowed. ISSUES: Whether the amount collected as Extra Duty Deposit (EDD) under Board Circular No. 5/2016-Cus. dated 09.02.2016 constitutes 'customs duty' within the meaning of Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962.Whether the limitation period prescribed under Section 27 of the Customs Act applies to refund claims of EDD.Whether the Revenue is obligated to refund the EDD when investigations by the Special Valuation Board (SVB) confirm the correctness of the declared transaction value and no additional customs duty is payable. RULINGS / HOLDINGS: The Court held that the amount collected as EDD is a 'security deposit' and 'by no stretch of imagination the said deposit can be called as customs duty.'The limitation period under Section 27 of the Customs Act does not apply to refund claims of EDD since EDD is not in the nature of customs duty.When the SVB investigation concludes that the declared transaction value is correct and no additional duty is payable, the substratum for retaining the EDD no longer exists, mandating a refund of the EDD along with applicable interest. RATIONALE: The Court relied on the legal framework established by Board Circular No. 5/2016-Cus. dated 09.02.2016, which clarifies that EDD collected post-provisional assessment is a security deposit to ensure compliance during SVB investigations.Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962, governs refunds of customs duty; however, since EDD is not customs duty but a security, the limitation under Section 27 is inapplicable.The Court referred extensively to the precedent set by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Sentec India Company Pvt. Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Customs, which held that the refund of EDD is not barred by limitation and that EDD must be refunded with interest if no under-declaration is found.This interpretation underscores a doctrinal distinction between customs duty and security deposits collected during valuation investigations, ensuring that importers are not unjustly deprived of security deposits once investigations conclude favorably.