Full Judgment
After receiving the above compensation from the foreign supplier, the respondents filed a refund claim with the Asst. Commissioner of Customs, saying that the transaction value stood revised to US $ 93,000 and, therefore, they were entitled to refund of differential duty to the extent of Rs. 3,28,603. The AC rejected this claim, holding that, as per Section 14 of the Customs Act, the price declared by the importer at the time of delivery and place of importation should be taken into account for determining the assessable value and therefore the assessment of the Bill of Entry was legally correct. The first appellate authority, however, accepted the revised price of US $ 93,000 as transaction value and allowed refund of the differential duty by relying on the Tribunal's decision in Bechtel International Inc. v. CC, Mumbai, 2001 (133) ELT 475 (Tri.-Mumbai). This decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) is under challenge in the present appeal of the Revenue.
2. Heard both sides. It was submitted by learned SDR that the finalised assessment of Bill of Entry had not been challenged by the assessee and could not be reopened through a claim for refund of duty. In this connection, he relied on the Tribunal's decision in Ashok Leyland Ltd. v. CC, Chennai, 2004 (116) ECR 478 (Tri-Chennai) and the Supreme Court's decision in Priya Blue Industries Ltd. v. CC, (Preventive) 2004(96) ECC 217 (SC) : 2004 (172) ELT 145 (SC). Ld. Counsel for the respondents sought to justify the impugned order.
3. After giving careful consideration to the submissions, we find that the final assessment of the Bill of Entry was never challenged by the respondents, They claimed refund of a part of the duty which was paid on the basis of such assessment. This claim was rightly rejected by the original authority. Apparently, the refund was claimed on the basis of a decree of compensation awarded to the respondents by a Civil Court against the foreign supplier. When the respondents received the compensation, the Civil Court decree stood satisfied. It had no bearing on the respondents' refund claim filed with the Customs department.
Such a claim should be based on final assessment of the goods. In the instant case, the respondents had paid duty on the goods as assessed on the relevant Bill of Entry. This assessment was never challenged by them and hence it became final and binding on them. It could not be challenged through a refund claim as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Priya Blue Industries (supra). We find that, in the case of Ashok Leyland Ltd. also, the rejection of refund claim filed by the party was upheld after holding that post-importation reduction of price of imported goods followed by issue of credit notes for the differential price by the supplier was no basis for refund of differential duty paid on the goods where the assessment of the relevant Bills of Entry was not successfully appealed against. The facts of the instant case are substantially similar to those of Ashok Leyland Ltd. (supra).
Therefore, following the decision in Ashok Leyland case as well as the ratio of the Supreme Court's judgment in Priya Blue Industries (supra), we hold that the respondents are not entitled to refund of any duty. In the result, the impugned order is set aside and this appeal is allowed.