2026 (4) TMI 1453

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ecting third respondent to reassess 8042 Bills of Entry filed by the petitioner for the period from 06.10.2016 to 01.07.2022, within a stipulated period by giving effect to reduction of 68% in valuation of goods covered therein as directed in the order No. 01/2025 dated 31.12.2025 and consequently direct first Respondent to refund excess customs duty paid by the petitioner amounting to INR 4,49,31,829 along with interest at the rate prescribed under section 27A of the Customs Act 1962, to the petitioner with cost from 06.10.2016 till the date of actual refund. 2. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner would submit that petitioner is a private limited Company and subsidiary of Tokyo Chemical Industry Co. Ltd., Japan. The pet....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Z stream is assessed at the declared value, while the SEZ stream is assessed by adding 90% to the declared value. 4. He would submit that the Development Commissioner MEPZ vide order dated 20.02.2020 had passed an order wherein it was found that the price for SEZ clearances was determined in terms of the provisions of the Customs Act and Rules. Aggrieved, petitioner preferred an Appeal before the Commissioner Appeals I, who confirmed the order of the Development Commissioner MEPZ. 5. Petitioner carried the matter in appeal before the Tribunal. Tribunal found that the unilateral enhancement of the assessable value without issuing any speaking order is in violation of the procedure, importantly also found that the duty payment made at e....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....leted within a period of three months from the date of communication of this order. 6. It is submitted that pursuant to the aforementioned orders of the CESTAT Tribunal, the impugned order was passed wherein the assessable value is reduced from 'declared value plus 90%' to 'declared value plus 22%'. In other words 68% of the loaded value (or) addition to declared value was found to be in excess. Petitioner has repeatedly submitted representation seeking refund, however there is complete inaction in processing the refund application. 7. Mr.J.Harikrishnan, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents would submit that the respondents will examine the representations made for refund vide emails dated 19.06.2025, 23.06.2025, 16.....