SAWNNEY EXPORT HOUSE P. LTD. Vs. CC, MUMBAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) M /s Sawhney Export House Pvt. Ltd have filed these two appeals, being aggrieved with the Order No. 536 and 537/2000 MCH dt. 9 -8 -2000 and 629/2000 MCH dt. 10 -10 -2000 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) Mumbai.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts are that the Appellant imported certain goods from abroad. The Assistant Collector (Customs) enhanced the value on which duty was paid by the Appellants. The Commissioner (Appeals) has accepted the value as declared by the Appellants. The Appellants have also requested for payment of refund of excess duty alongwith interest on the excess duty paid and refund of demurrage charges paid by them. The Commissioner (Appeals) in both the impugned Orders has held that the Appellants are entitled to the consequential refund as a consequence of accepting the value declared by them. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) has given his findings that the procedure for claiming refund of duty or the interest has been provided in Section 27 of the Customs Act ; that since they did not file a regular refund claim under Section 27, their request for payment of interest is not maintainable under the law. The Commissioner (Appeals) has also given his findings that there is a prescribed procedure for claiming demurrage in case of delayed clearance by obtaining detention certificate and as there is nothing on record to show that the Appellants has following the said procedure, the benefit cannot be given late at the appeal stage.

(3.) SHRI T.S.Sawhney, Managing Director of the Appellants, submitted that as the excess duty was charged erroneously by the Department, they are entitled to claim refund of excess duty paid, interest @ 18% permissible under the Customs Act; that the demurrage had been paid by them on account of delay caused by the Department and accordingly they are entitled to refund of the same. He relied upon the decision in the case of Natwar Textile Processors (P) Ltd. Vs. U.O.I., 1995 (57) ECR 10 (S.C.) wherein in Supreme Court dismissed the Civil Appeal with cost with direction to the Appellants that in case duty is found payable then interest @ 18% P.a. will also be payable from the date of payment. He also placed reliance on the decision in the case of Sandeep Industries Vs. Collector of Customs, New Delhi, 1991 (37) ECR 595 (Del) wherein it was held by the Delhi High Court that "..when the import was lawful, the goods could not be confiscated and when the valuation has also been finally determined by the Collector, i.e., the declared value as accepted by the Collector then there was no occassion for not releasing the goods and the petitioner cannot even be held liable for demurrage in these facts and circumstances. In our opinion, therefore, the petitioner is entitled to a direction for the release of the goods without payment of any demugrrage/ground rent charges/container charges in respect of the period from the date of filing of the bills of entry."