Customs | Post-Clearance Reassessment Of Bills Of Entry Not Permissible Solely To Secure Refund On Strength Of Later SC Verdict: CESTAT Mumbai
Pranav B Prem
The Mumbai Bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has reaffirmed that once imported goods are cleared after assessment, Bills of Entry cannot be reopened at a later stage merely to obtain a refund on the strength of a subsequent favourable Supreme Court judgment delivered in another assessee’s case. The Bench comprising Dr. Suvendu Kumar Pati (Judicial Member) and M.M. Parthiban (Technical Member) dismissed the appeal filed by Minerva Enterprises and upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)’ order refusing reassessment of 56 Bills of Entry filed in 2015, holding that the statutory framework does not permit post-clearance reassessment or amendment when the only objective is to derive a refund based on later judicial precedent.
The case arose from the import of mobile handsets on which the appellant paid Countervailing Duty (CVD) at the rate of 12%. The appellant later claimed that it was eligible to avail concessional duty at 1% under Notification No. 12/2012-CE (Sr. No. 263A) and sought reassessment of the Bills of Entry in December 2019. This request was made nearly four years after clearance of the goods and was prompted solely by the Supreme Court’s ruling in SRF Limited v. Commissioner of Customs [2015 (318) ELT 607 (SC)], which settled the issue of eligibility for the concessional rate. The adjudicating authority rejected the request and the Commissioner (Appeals) affirmed the denial, resulting in the present appeal before CESTAT.
Before the Tribunal, the assessee argued that reassessment had been denied only on the ground that no material was produced to show technical glitches in the EDI system that prevented the payment of 1% CVD at the time of filing the Bills of Entry. It was contended that Section 17 of the Customs Act, 1962 does not prescribe a time limit for reassessment of self-assessed Bills of Entry, and therefore reassessment initiated after clearance should not be rejected on the ground of delay alone. The appellant also maintained that the system did not allow selection of the concessional rate at the time of assessment, and therefore it could not avail the benefit earlier.
The Revenue countered that reassessment under Sections 17 and 149 of the Customs Act can be invoked only before goods are cleared for home consumption. It was submitted that the appellant had never attempted to claim the concessional duty at the time of assessment, had not paid duty under protest, and had produced no documentary evidence that the system prevented payment at 1%. The Revenue asserted that reassessment requests made solely to secure a refund on the basis of a later judicial pronouncement are legally impermissible.
The Tribunal noted that the appellant had not furnished any contemporaneous documentary proof to establish that it attempted to pay concessional duty at the relevant time or that the system rejected the 1% rate. It further held that neither Section 17 nor Section 149 permits reassessment or amendment of Bills of Entry after clearance of goods unless such amendment is based on documentary evidence in existence at the time of original clearance. No such evidence existed in the present case.
The Tribunal emphasised that transaction value and duty liability attain finality at the time and place of removal. Even if the legal position regarding eligibility to concessional duty becomes clear later, this cannot trigger reassessment of completed assessments merely for the purpose of refund. Relying on Mafatlal Industries Ltd. v. Union of India [1996 SUPP 10 SCR], the Bench reiterated that a refund cannot be claimed simply because a later judgment has taken a favourable view in another assessee’s case.
Holding that the reassessment request was motivated solely to obtain refund without any contemporaneous evidence to justify reopening of the Bills of Entry, the Tribunal concluded that the Commissioner (Appeals)’ order was “proper and legal”. Accordingly, the CESTAT dismissed the appeal and confirmed that the importer was not entitled to reassessment or refund based on a subsequent Supreme Court ruling once the assessments had attained finality.
Appearance
Appearance for Appellant/Assessee: Shri Ramchandra Mattlyil
Appearance for Respondent: Shri Ram Kumar, Deputy Commissioner
Cause Title: M/s Minerva Enterprises v. Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai-I
Case No: Customs Appeal No. 85797 of 2022
Coram: Dr. Suvendu Kumar Pati (Judicial Member), M.M. Parthiban (Technical Member)
