Legal principle

A 4% SAD refund under Notification No.102/2007-Cus. cannot be rejected merely because sale invoices use a generic description instead of reproducing the grades in the Bills of Entry, absent positive evidence that the goods sold were different from those imported.

Court decision

The Tribunal held the Department's appeal was not barred by limitation (Issue (i) answered against the appellant), but on merits found the appellant had substantively complied with Notification No.102/2007-Cus. and was entitled to the refund of Rs.5,02,579. The impugned Order-in-Appeal C.Cus-II No.175/2017 was set aside, the Order-in-Original sanctioning the refund was restored, any recovery pursuant to the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief — i.e., the decision went in favour of the assessee.

Facts

M/s. PP Products P. Ltd., a trader in plastic granules, claimed refund of 4% Special Additional Duty (SAD) of Rs.5,02,579 under Notification No.102/2007-Cus for four Bills of Entry covering March 2009 imports, and the original authority sanctioned the refund by Order-in-Original No.11318/2010 dated 10.03.2010. The Department appealed to the Commissioner (Appeals), whose initial rejection of the appeal was remanded by the Tribunal for de novo consideration. On remand, the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the refund sanction and directed recovery, mainly because the sale invoices described the goods generically as 'plastic granules' while the Bills of Entry mentioned specific grades (HDPE, HDPI, HDPEHD, LDPE PETLIN), and because sales were made through consignment agents. The importer appealed to the CESTAT, Chennai.

Key provisions

• Section 129D, Customs Act, 1962 — Powers of Committee of Principal Commissioner of Customs or Chief Commissioners of Customs or Principal Commissioner of Customs or Commissioner of Customs to pass certain orders