SAWHNEY EXPORT HOUSES Vs. COMMR. OF CUSTOMS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this appeal the appellants have challenged the impugned order -in -appeal dated 6 -6 -2002 vide which the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) had affirmed the order -in -original of the Deputy Commissioner disallowing refund of Rs. 2,52,678/ -.

(2.) The facts are not much in dispute. The appellants through Bill of Entry dated 25 -5 -89 sought clearance of the imported goods (metal findings) on payment of duty of Rs. 2,32,646/ -. But the Customs authorities alleged that the quantity actually imported was in excess of the declared quantity and accordingly the Assistant Commissioner adjudicated the matter and ordered confiscation of the goods with option to get the same redeemed on payment of fine of Rs. 2000/ - and imposed a penalty of Rs. 500/ -. The goods were valued in the adjudication order at Rs. 10,400/ -. The appellants accordingly paid dues and got the goods cleared. They however, filed an appeal against that adjudication order before the Collector (Appeals) who dismissed the same on the ground that the adjudication order was not signed by the Assistant Collector. Against that order of the Collector (Appeals), the appellants filed an appeal before the Tribunal which also upheld the order, vide Final Order dated 7 -8 -96 and directed the appellants to take up the matter with the Assistant Collector. Thereafter writ petition was filed by them in the High Court which too was disposed of on 16 -1 -97 directing the appellants to approach the Assistant Collector, who was advised to decide the refund claim expeditiously. Accordingly, the appellants filed a refund application for the refund of Rs. 2,52,678/ - duty amount, besides the redemption fine and penalty.

(3.) The Deputy Commissioner through order dated 19 -1 -2001 sanctioned refund of redemption fine of Rs. 1000/ - and penalty of Rs. 500/ - in favour of the appellants. But refused the refund of duty amount and ordered the same to be deposited in the Consumer Welfare Fund as the appellants have failed to produce evidence that they had not passed on the incidence of that amount of duty to any other person. That order of the Deputy Commissioner had been upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals) through the impugned order.