Overseas Traders Vs. Commissioner of Cus. (imp. and

Overseas Traders vs Commissioner of Cus. (imp. and

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi Decided May 25, 2005

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/39168

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/39168
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Judge: P Bajaj
Decided On: May 25, 2005
Subject: Customs

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Customs

Key legal issue: Customs

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Overseas Traders

Respondent

Commissioner of Cus. (imp. and

Legal References

Reported In: (2006)(193)ELT42TriDel

Excerpt

1. in this appeal which has been filed by the appellants against the impugned order-in-appeal, the issue relates to the refund of duty to the appellants.2. the facts are not much in dispute. the appellants imported one consignment of cosmetic goods. they filed bill of entry dated 11-4-2000 for the clearance of those goods. the competent authority assessed the customs duty payable on the goods and they deposited the same on 15-4-2000. thereafter, the goods were confiscated and reassessed in pursuance to the order of the addl. commissioner. the goods were ordered to be confiscated with an option to re-deem the same on payment of redemption fine of rs. 1 lakh and short paid customs duty of rs. 1,03,271/-. that order was, however, challenged by the appellants before the tribunal who set aside the same. again the customs duty was reassessed along with redemption fine, by the competent authority.3. the appellants thereafter changed their mind and abandoned the goods by making reference to the provision of section 23(2) of the act. they filed a refund claim for refund of duty of rs. 23,242/-. their claim had been rejected by the authorities below.4. the contention of the ld. counsel is that the title to the goods could be relinquished under section 23 of the customs act, by the appellants at any time, before passing of the order under section 47 of the act, therefore, their refund claim could not be rejected. but in my view, this contention of the counsel is misconceived. the order assessing the customs duty payable on the goods and fixing the redemption fine on which goods could be got released by the appellants, amounted to the causing of clearance of the goods by the authority under section 47 of the act. it was for the appellants to get the goods released on payment of duty and redemption fine. therefore, the relinquishment of title to the goods could not be exercised after passing of the above said order regarding duty and redemption fine, under section 23 of the.....

Full Judgment

1. In this appeal which has been filed by the appellants against the impugned order-in-appeal, the issue relates to the refund of duty to the appellants.

2. The facts are not much in dispute. The appellants imported one consignment of cosmetic goods. They filed Bill of Entry dated 11-4-2000 for the clearance of those goods. The competent authority assessed the customs duty payable on the goods and they deposited the same on 15-4-2000. Thereafter, the goods were confiscated and reassessed in pursuance to the order of the Addl. Commissioner. The goods were ordered to be confiscated with an option to re-deem the same on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 1 lakh and short paid customs duty of Rs. 1,03,271/-. That order was, however, challenged by the appellants before the Tribunal who set aside the same. Again the customs duty was reassessed along with redemption fine, by the competent authority.

3. The appellants thereafter changed their mind and abandoned the goods by making reference to the provision of Section 23(2) of the Act. They filed a refund claim for refund of duty of Rs. 23,242/-. Their claim had been rejected by the authorities below.

4. The contention of the ld. Counsel is that the title to the goods could be relinquished under Section 23 of the Customs Act, by the appellants at any time, before passing of the order under Section 47 of the Act, therefore, their refund claim could not be rejected. But in my view, this contention of the Counsel is misconceived. The order assessing the customs duty payable on the goods and fixing the redemption fine on which goods could be got released by the appellants, amounted to the causing of clearance of the goods by the authority under Section 47 of the Act. It was for the appellants to get the goods released on payment of duty and redemption fine. Therefore, the relinquishment of title to the goods could not be exercised after passing of the above said order regarding duty and redemption fine, under Section 23 of the Act, which specifically enacts that such a right can be exercised by the importer only before the discharge of the goods. Therefore, the refund claim of the appellants on this ground has been rightly rejected.

5. Apart from this, the refund claim of the appellants is also time barred. It was required to be filed within normal time of limitation from the date of payment of duty, but was not so filed. The duty was deposited by them on 15-4-2000, whereas the refund claim was submitted by them on 28-5-2003 much after the expiry of prescribed period.

Therefore, the refund claim deserves rejection on this ground also.

6. Consequently, the impugned order is upheld and the appeal of the appellants is dismissed.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delh... Same Parties Overseas Traders vs Commissioner of Cus. (imp. and Same Subject Customs Same Judge P Bajaj