By TIOL News Service

CHENNAI, DEC 07, 2016: THE petitioner imported white oats under Warehouse Bill of Entry and filed an Ex-Bond Bill of Entry, for clearance of the said goods. After assessment of duty of Rs.3,38,353/- and out of charge was given on 07.10.2008 by the Superintendent of Customs, Bond Section, Chennai. However, warehouse caught fire on 09.10.2008 and the petitioner, vide letter, dated 28.01.2009 informed that the goods were completely destroyed and requested the Customs Authorities to remit the duty under Section 23(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 and grant consequential refund of duty already paid. The claim was rejected by the original authority and allowed by Commissioner (Appeals). Revenue appeal against the order of Commissioner (Appeals) was dismissed by the Tribunal. However, the Petitioner was not allowed refund in spite of several representations. Aggrieved by the same, the assessee filed the Writ Petition.

After hearing both sides, the High Court held:

+ It is a classic case where the Department has failed to take any action in spite of the remission claim having attained finality, pursuant to order of the CESTAT, dated 08.08.2012. The delay from 2012 to 2016 remains unexplained. None of the representation given by the petitioner evoked any response. The reply given under the RTI Act was also not an effective reply. In the Order-in-Original, dated 15.10.2009, the Deputy Commissioner of Customs (Refunds), has clearly set out as to the documents (16 numbers) furnished by the petitioner. That apart, the Commissioner of Appeals, while allowing the Appeal, by the order dated 23.09.2011, has clearly held that the Department did not dispute the destruction of the goods and that the contention of the petitioner and the lower Authorities are bound to remit the duty suo-motu. This finding was not reversed or set-aside by the CESTAT in the Appeal filed by the Department. Therefore, once again to insist upon furnishing of documents by the petitioner amounts to harassment.

+ Thus, taking note of the all above mentioned facts, which have culled out from the orders passed by the Commissioner of Appeals as well as CESTAT in favour of the petitioner, which clearly shows that there cannot be any dispute for the petitioner being entitled for remission of customs duty paid. Therefore, the Court is inclined to issue a positive direction to the respondents to grant remission of the duty and effect refund to the petitioner. The interest of the Department / Revenue has been sufficiently safeguarded as the petitioner has already executed a perpetual indemnity bond which shall be kept alive.

(See 2016-TIOL-2934-HC-MAD-CUS)