Customs | Bills Of Entry Cannot Be Reassessed After Clearance Merely To Claim Refund Based On Later SC Judgment: CESTAT Mumbai

A Division Bench comprising Dr. Suvendu Kumar Pati (Judicial Member) and M.M. Parthiban (Technical Member) dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee, M/s Minerva Enterprises and upheld the order of the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Mumbai, which had refused reassessment of 56 Bills of Entry cleared in 2015, stating that Both the provisions would go to indicate that after clearance of goods neither reassessment nor amendment of the Bills of Entry could be done in the normal circumstances, unless the exceptions noted above, which is admittedly found absent in the Appellant's case, apart from the fact that the sole purpose for reassessment was to enable the Appellant to get refund as a consequence of judgment passed in another case i.e. in SRF Limited, cited supra. Such a refund is hit by the principle laid down in the case of Mafatlal Industries Limited Vs. Union of India.

The case in hand related to import of mobile handsets by the asessee wherein Countervailing Duty (CVD) was paid at the rate of 12%, though the appellant later claimed eligibility to concessional duty at 1% under Notification No. 12/2012-CE (Sr. No. 263A).

Following the Supreme Court's decision in SRF Limited v. Commissioner of Customs [2015 (318) ELT 607 (SC)], which settled the applicability of the concessional rate, the assessee sought reassessment of 56 Bills of Entry in December 2019, nearly four years after clearance, to obtain refund of excess CVD paid.

The adjudicating authority rejected the request for reassessment, which was subsequently upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals).

Therefore, the appeal was preferred by the assessee before the CESTAT.

The assessee argued that reassessment had been denied solely on the ground that no evidence was produced to show technical glitches in the EDI system preventing payment of 1% duty.

It was further argued that Section 17 of the Customs Act, 1962 (assessment and reassessment of duty on imported and export goods) does not prescribe any time limit for reassessment of self-assessed Bills of Entry, and therefore reassessment sought even after clearance could not be rejected merely on the ground of delay.

The Revenue argued that reassessment under Sections 17 and 149 of the Customs Act is attracted only prior to out-of-charge of goods. It was argued that the assessee had never attempted to claim concessional duty at the time of filing Bills of Entry, nor paid duty under protest.

The Tribunal observed that the assessee failed to demonstrate any contemporaneous attempt to avail the concessional rate of duty or any evidence showing system-based rejection of 1% duty at the relevant time.

The Bench held that neither Section 17 nor Section 149 of the Customs Act permits reassessment or amendment of Bills of Entry after clearance of goods, except on the basis of documentary evidence existing at the time of clearance, which was absent in the present case.

The Bench relied on the Supreme Court's judgment in Mafatlal Industries Ltd. v. Union of India [1996 SUPP.10 SCR] , observing that a refund cannot be claimed on the strength of a judgment rendered in another assessee's case once assessment has attained finality.

In view of the above, the CESTAT dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), holding that the assessee was not entitled to reassessment or refund on the basis of a subsequent judicial pronouncement in another case.

Case Title: M/s Minerva Enterprises v. Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai-I

Case No.: Customs Appeal No. 85797 of 2022

Appearance for Appellant/Assessee: Shri Ramchandra Mattlyil

Appearance for Respondent: Shri Ram Kumar, Deputy Commissioner

Click Here To Read/Download Order