Calcutta High Court
Vedanta Ltd vs Commissioner Of Customs(Port) & Anr on 19 August, 2015
Author: Soumitra Pal
Bench: Soumitra Pal
GA No. 2209 of 2015
WITH
CUSTA 3 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
SPECIAL JURISDICTION
ORIGINAL SIDE
VEDANTA LTD.
Versus
COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS(PORT) & ANR.
BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE SOUMITRA PAL
The Hon'ble JUSTICE MIR DARA SHEKO Date : 19th August, 2015. For the petitioner :
Mr. Sudhir Kumar Mehta,Advocate For Commissioner of Customs (Port) :
Mr. R. Bharadwaj,Advocate Mr. Subir Kr. Saha,Advocate The Court : - This application has been filed for admitting the appeal under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962 preferred from the order dated 18th March,2015 passed by the Customs, Excise and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal in Customs Appeal C/91/10 on the substantial questions of law as formulated in paragraph 34 of this application.
It is submitted by Mr. Mehta that as the entire quantity of goods could not be exported for circumstances beyond control, his clients are entitled to refund of 2 the duty paid under the Customs Act. Relying on the documents annexed to the Paper Book II filed in Court, submission is since the goods were assessed provisionally and not finally and duty paid was in the nature of advance deposited, the prayer for refund cannot be within the scope and ambit of refund of duty. Reliance has been placed on the judgments in I.C.I. India Ltd. versus Collector of Customs: 1992 (60) E.L.T. 529 (Cal.), Board of Trustees of the Port of Mormugao versus Union of India: 1993(68) E.L.T. 39 (Bom.) and in United News of India versus Union of India: 2004(168) E.L.T. 442 (Del.) in support of his submission.
Mr. R. Bharadwaj, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the authorities supporting the order passed by the Tribunal submits that since the appellant had filed the Bill of Entry declaring that the particulars given therein were true and correct and was a self-assessed shipping bill and on the basis of the said bill, duty was paid and, accordingly, shipment of 25,000 metric tons was allowed and the goods were exported, the appellant cannot, after 6 ½ months, seek refund of duty. Submission is the judgments relied on by the appellant are distinguishable as those deal with cases of import.
Heard parties. It is evident from the shipping bills annexed to Paper Book II that the appellant had filed the shipping bill declaring "that all particulars given herein are true and correct" and thus the goods were self assessed. On the basis of the said bill duty was paid, shipments were allowed and the goods were exported.3
Therefore, as on the basis of the declaration, duty was paid by the appellant, the argument that the goods were provisionally assessed and the appellant is entitled to refund, is without substance. Moreover refund of duty was sought for after 6 ½ months. The judgments in I.C.I. India Ltd. (supra), Board of Trustees of the Port of Mormugao (supra) and United News of India(supra) are cases regarding import and not export. Thus, no substantial question of law arises. Hence, the application and appeal are dismissed.
(SOUMITRA PAL, J.) (MIR DARA SHEKO, J.) S.Chandra