A K GOENKA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) One M/s. Zapchast Exports appear to have imported certain stock of spare parts of Russian tractors in India. Such stock was stored in a bonded warehouse for meeting "on the shelf requirements"of customers against customers own import license as per provisions of the Import Trade Control Act. The goods were alleged to have been offered to the petitioner at a discount to the extent of 80% of the C.I.F. Value of the importers. Petitioner purchased the goods against Invoice No.190 and 211 and paid customs duty of Rs.20,818.63 paise against the same. The goods were purchased by the petitioner on 26.9.1978. In or about 1980-1981, the petitioner appears to have filed application for refund of excess customs duty alleged to have been recovered by the respondent. These applications were dismissed by the Assistant Collector of Customs. Appeal filed against the order of the Assistant Collector of Customs was dismissed by the Collector of Customs and the revision petition filed against the order of Collector of Customs was dismissed on 14.1.1983 by the Customs, Excise & Gold Control Appellate Tribunal (in short referred to as CEGAT)

(2.) It appears that besides the above consignments (hereinafter referred to as the First Consignment) the petitioner had also purchased certain others goods imported by the same importer allegedly at a discounted price. The Application for refund of the customs duty in respect of these goods (hereinafter referred to as the Second Consignment) were dismissed by the Asstt.Collector of Customs on the ground of the application being barred by time. Appeal filed against the above order before the Collector of Customs was also dismissed, however, the Customs, Excise & Gold Control Appellate Tribunal (CEGAT) by its order dated 7.3.1986 held the application for refund to be within time and remanded the matter to the Assistant Collector of Customs for reassessment after valuing the goods afresh. On matter being remanded, the Assistant Collector of Customs in March, 1989 after considering the entire material on record directed refund of excess customs duty in respect of the Second Consignment.

(3.) After the aforesaid order was passed by the Customs, Excise & Gold Control Appellate Tribunal remanding the matter to the Asstt.Collector of Customs for reassessment after revaluing the goods of the Second Consignment, the petitioner again filed an application before the Customs, Excise & Gold Control Appellate Tribunal for re-hearing the matter about refund of excess customs duty on the goods covered by the first consignment and for passing similar orders as were passed in respect of the goods in the Second Consignment. This application was dismissed as withdrawn on 10.1.1987. After dismissal of his application, the petitioner filed the present writ petition in February, 1990 after the Assistant Collector of Customs had, in March, 1989, directed the refund of the excess duty paid by the petitioner in respect of the Second Consignment.