NEW KAMAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since both these petitions involve identical question of law and facts, they are heard and adjudicated together by this common order.

(2.) Drawing the facts from Special Civil Application No.13167 of 2019, it is noticed that the petitioners engaged in the business of trading of used and worn clothes, had purchased mutilated worn clothes from one M/s. Om Siddh Vinayak Impex Pvt. Ltd., located in the Kandla Special Economic Zone. The goods imported in India are liable to duties of customs leviable under the Customs Act, 1962 and also additional custom duties leviable under Section 3 of the Customs Tarrif Act, 1975.

(3.) Upon service of notice, affidavit in reply is filed by other side. We noticed that subject refund claims were submitted by the petitioners on 19.10.2009, 4.12.2010, 22.01.2011, 12.01.2011, 04.11.2010 and 18.01.2011 seeking 4% SAD paid by them at the time of import from unit in Kandla SEZ and Circular No.11/2017 dated 31.3.2017 by CBEC was issued after more than 7 years of filing of applications of refund. According to them interest could not be allowed retrospectively, as the Customs House, Kandla was not empowered to settle the refund claim prior to 31.3.2017. The Standard Operating Procedure ('SOP' for short) is to deal with old cases of refund pending as on the date of coming into effect of the notification dated 31.3.2017 wherein it was directed that SAD is to be refunded by the Customs, Central Excise or Central GST authorities.