TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (3) TMI 75
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ods in question were cleared on a provisional assessment basis on payment of EDD of 1% or 5% in terms of Circular 05/2016-Customs dated 9th February, 2016 read with Circular No. 11/2001-Customs dated 23rd February, 2001 and Circular No. 1/1998-Customs dated 01st January, 1998. According to the Petitioner, it had deposited Rs. 10,72,986/- in the form of EDD at that stage to facilitate the release of the goods. 5. SVB had commenced an investigation in respect of the said imports based on the allegation that the exporter ('Sentec E & E Co. Ltd, Taiwan) and Importer (Petitioner) were related, and the said relationship could have resulted in the undervaluation of the goods imported. Therefore SVB had to investigate with respect to the following aspects: (i) Whether the above parties are 'related' under Rule 2 (g) (2) (iv) & (v) of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods), Rules, 2007? (ii) Whether the said relationship has led to undervaluation of the imported goods? 6. Vide Investigation Report No. CUS/SVB-DEL/78/2017-18 dated 30th November, 2017 and SVB order dated 6th December, 2017, the SVB concluded that though the parties were relate....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....(Bharat) Limited (W.A.No.1084 of 2021, Madras High Court) (iii) China Steel Corporation India Pvt Ltd v. C.C.-Ahmedabad (2022 SCC OnLine CESTAT 2745, CESTAT Ahmedabad) 11. Heard the Ld. Counsels for the parties. A perusal of the impugned OIO shows that there are four dates mentioned across the order i.e., (empty space).11.2024, (empty space).12.24, 30.11.2024 and 04.12.2024. However, it is taken to have been passed on 30th November 2024, when it was signed by the officer concerned. 12. Further, the said order acknowledges that the amount of EDD has been deposited over and above the customs duty. The extract of the said order is set out below: - "5. I have carefully gone through the refund claim along with records/ documents submitted by the claimant. I find that the Goods imported against above said 17 Bill of Entry submitted by the claimant were assessed provisionally by accepting extra duty deposit of 1 % or 5% during the period pending finalization of assessment. The party had deposited 1 % or 5% extra duty deposit (EDD) through manual TR-6 Challan in respect of 03 Bill of Entry, and through e-challan for 14 BOE 1as mentioned in Table A above. 8.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n delays in dispensing of EDD, even though they have provided the required information and a period of 4 months has passed without the case having been decided. Therefore, the Board has decided that while reference to SVB requires the assessments to be provisional, for the sake of reducing transaction cost and bringing uniformity across Customs Houses, no security in the form of EDD shall be obtained from the importers. However, if the importer fails to provide documents and information required for SVB inquiries, within 60 days of such requisition, security deposit at a rate of 5% of the declared assessable value shall be imposed by the Commissioner for a period not exceeding the next three months. Simultaneously, the importer shall be granted a further period of 60 days to comply with the requisition for information & documents. If the importer fails to submit documents within this extended period, the Commissioner in charge of SVB may consider the use of other provisions of the Customs Act for obtaining documents / information from an importer for conducting investigations. In no case shall the imposition of Security Deposit exceed the period of three months specified above. Fur....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g, authority. After remand, the additional value laid was excluded and the provisional transaction value declared was accepted. In the meanwhile, the assessee-had paid additional value. Therefore, he wrote letters demanding refund of the said amount. However, the same came to be rejected by the assessing authority on the ground that it was barred by time. Aggrieved by the same, he preferred an appeal. The appellate authority held that, the refund claim that has been preferred by the assessee is not customs duty, but it is extra duty deposit. Thus, this amount cannot be equated with the duty payable by the assessee against the import of the goods by them. At the moot, it can be treated as a pre-cautionary measure to cover up/make good the difference of duty payable by them after completion of final assessment. Therefore, the appellate authority held that the time limit stipulated under Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962 is not applicable in the instant case. The provisions under Section 18 (1) and 18 (2) could have been followed and refund would have been granted automatically after completion of final assessment and cancellation of PD bonds. In coming to that conclusion, he relied....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e refund, if otherwise due. 13. The respondent has filed a counter affidavit, however, the same is not on record. A copy of the same has been handed over to this Court. The respondent seeks to resist the present petition on, essentially, two grounds. First, it states that the petitioner has a remedy of appeal before the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) under Section 128 of the Customs Act. And second, that the appellant had not quoted the order passed by the Supreme Court in Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No. 3 of 2020 in Re : Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, whereby the period from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 was directed to be excluded for the purpose of computing limitation in respect of any application or any appeal. 14. Both the grounds, as stated in the counter affidavit, are bereft of any merit. 15. Respondent no. 1 has misdirected itself in considering the petitioner's request for refund of the balance amount of Rs. 13,53,326/- made on 22.07.2022 as a fresh application. The said request was in continuation of the proceedings relating to the application for refund dated 19.02.2019. Thus, the question of the petitioner's claim being bar....