2015 (4) TMI 417

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ting refund of excess duty paid by the importer, M/s. Minex Metallurgical Co. Pvt. Ltd., the appellant herein, on the ground that without challenging the assessment, refund could not have been sanctioned in view of the Apex Court's decision in the case of Priya Blue Industries Ltd. Aggrieved of the same, the appellant is before us. 2. The learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant imported "Ferro Titaium Cored Wire" vide bill of entry No. 2650 dated 07.09.2011. In the bill of entry, the transaction value was declared as Euro 12786.50 instead of US @ 12786.50. The appellant realized the mistake immediately after payment of duty and clearance of the goods and therefore, they filed a refund claim towards the excess pay....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....out order of assessment having been modified in appeal or reviewed under Section 28 of Customs Act, 1962, and the original order would stand and therefore, grant of refund is incorrect in law. Hence, the appeal. 3. The learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the Priya Blue Industries Ltd. case deals with a situation where the assessment is completed by the competent officer and unless the assessment is reviewed under Section 28, the question of grant of refund claim would not arise. In the present case, the issue involved relates to a mistake by wrongly declaring the foreign currency. This mistake has been rectified in the order of the adjudicating authority and consequently, refund of excess duty paid has been sanctioned. The ord....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....therefore, the order of the lower appellate authority is sustainable in law. 5. I have carefully considered the submissions made by both the sides. 5.1 It is an admitted fact that the appellant committed an error while declaring the currency as Euro instead of US $ in the bill of entry. The appellant also submitted evidences by way of copy of purchase orders, letter from foreign supplier, letter from the banker evidencing that the correct currency is US $ and not Euro and therefore, the declaration made in the bill of entry was a mistake. The adjudicating authority on the strength of the documents placed by the appellant, re-assessed the duty liability and after satisfying that there is no unjust enrichment involved, sanctioned the ex....