2025 (12) TMI 324 - AT - Customs

SAD Refund Restored as Importer Proves No Unjust Enrichment, Document Scrutiny Upheld under Section 27 Customs Act

M/s. Shopper’s Stop Ltd Versus The Commissioner of Customs (Exports), Chennai

CESTAT allowed the appeal, setting aside the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) which had rejected refund of Special Additional Duty (SAD). The Tribunal ... Refund of SAD - refund rightly sanctioned or not based on documents submitted including chartered accountant certificate - Principles of unjust enrichment - HELD THAT:- The Ld. Adjudicating Authority has gone through the documents submitted by the Appellant and the Chartered Accountant’s certificate and satisfied himself that the appellant was eligible for refund - the claim of the Revenue that the appellant has produced only 10 Bills of Entry and related documents before the Adjudicating Authority is not supported by any evidence. The claim of the Revenue that no Original Bills of Entry, TR 6 Challans, and relevant documents in respect of the remaining Bills of Entry were submitted by the appellant before the Sanctioning Authority, is also not supported by any evidence. There is no ground raised by the Revenue against the findings given by the Ld. Adjudicating Authority while sanctioning the refunds after verifying the documents. Accordingly, it is observed that the Original Adjudicating Authority has rightly sanctioned the refund claims and there is no merit in rejection of the refund claims sanctioned to the appellant by the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals). Accordingly, the Impugned Order is set aside - appeal allowed. 1. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED 1.1 Whether the refund of Special Additional Duty (SAD) under Notification No. 102/2007-Cus., as amended, was correctly sanctioned by the Adjudicating Authority on the basis of documents produced, including a Chartered Accountant's certificate on unjust enrichment. 1.2 Whether the Commissioner (Appeals) was justified in setting aside the refund sanction on the ground that complete Bills of Entry and related documents were not produced before the Adjudicating Authority. 2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1: Correctness of refund of SAD sanctioned under Notification No. 102/2007-Cus., as amended Legal framework 2.1 The Court referred to Notification No. 102/2007-Cus. dated 14.09.2007 as amended by Notification No. 93/2008-Cus. dated 01.08.2008, read with Board's Circulars No. 6/2008-Cus. dated 28.04.2008, 16/2008-Cus. dated 13.10.2008 and 18/2010-Cus. dated 08.07.2010. Under this scheme, the importer claiming refund of SAD is required, inter alia, to produce a Chartered Accountant's certificate evidencing payment of SAD and certifying that unjust enrichment is not attracted. Interpretation and reasoning 2.2 The Court noted that the refund claim pertained to SAD paid in respect of 92 Bills of Entry and that the Adjudicating Authority sanctioned the refund after scrutiny of documents in terms of the above Notification and Circulars. 2.3 The Court recorded that a Chartered Accountant's certificate from M/s. Dixit Dattatray & Associates was produced, the contents of which were reproduced in the Order-in-Original. The certificate stated that: (a) The books of accounts, relevant documents, cost sheets and price structure were examined to verify unjust enrichment. (b) The selling price of the imported goods did not include the component of 4% Additional Duty of Customs leviable under Section 3(5) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, and that the incidence of such duty had not been passed on to buyers or any other person in respect of all goods covered by the claim. (c) The 4% Additional Duty claimed as refund was shown as 'Receivables/Recoverable in cash' under 'Loans & Advances/Current Assets' in the books (Balance Sheet/Trial Balance) for the relevant periods. (d) The said duty amount had not been charged to the Profit and Loss Account as an expense and therefore did not form part of the cost of goods. 2.4 On this basis, the Court held that the Chartered Accountant's certificate adequately established that the burden of 4% Additional Duty had not been passed on, and that the requirement to rule out unjust enrichment was fulfilled. 2.5 The Court found that the Adjudicating Authority had examined the documents and the Chartered Accountant's certificate and satisfied itself regarding eligibility for refund before sanctioning the claims. Conclusions 2.6 The Court concluded that the refund of SAD was correctly sanctioned by the Adjudicating Authority in compliance with Notification No. 102/2007-Cus., as amended, and the applicable Board Circulars, including the requirement regarding unjust enrichment. Issue 2: Validity of the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) setting aside the refund on the ground of incomplete documents Interpretation and reasoning 2.7 The Revenue's appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) was premised on the assertion that the importer had produced only 10 Bills of Entry and related documents before the Adjudicating Authority and that original Bills of Entry, TR-6 challans and relevant documents for the remaining Bills of Entry were not submitted. 2.8 The Court observed that the Revenue had not produced any evidence to substantiate the allegation that only 10 Bills of Entry and related documents were produced before the Adjudicating Authority, or that original Bills of Entry, TR-6 challans and other relevant documents for the remaining Bills of Entry were not submitted. 2.9 The Court further noted that no specific ground had been raised by the Revenue challenging the factual findings and verification undertaken by the Adjudicating Authority while sanctioning the refunds. 2.10 The Court found that the Commissioner (Appeals) accepted the Revenue's grounds and set aside the Order-in-Original without supporting evidence and without dislodging the Adjudicating Authority's findings based on verification of documents and the Chartered Accountant's certificate. Conclusions 2.11 The Court held that the Commissioner (Appeals) was not justified in setting aside the refund sanction, as the Revenue's contentions regarding non-production or partial production of documents were unsubstantiated. 2.12 The Court concluded that there was no merit in the rejection of the refund sanctioned by the Adjudicating Authority and accordingly set aside the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and restored the refund with consequential relief as per law.