Case Law Details
Global United Shipping India (P) Ltd. Vs Assistant Commissioner of Customs (Refund) (Madras High Court)
It is better to understand the difference between term “duty” and “deposit”. Certainly, both are not conveying the same meaning and intended purpose. While the “deposit”, either offered by the importer/assessee on their own or in compliance of statutory obligation, pending disposal of a proceedings, is an act as an interim measure, the “duty” is the statutory liability collected as “revenue” to the Revenue on determination of the liability of the importer. In other words, while the “deposit” is made to safegaurd the interest of the Revenue pending adjudication/ determination of the liability of the importer to pay the duty, the “duty” is paid and collected by discharging the statutory obligation of such payment. No doubt, both ‘duty’ and ‘deposit’ are in the hands of the Revenue. At the same time, it is to be noted that right to credit or forfeit such deposit would arise only after determination of the liability to pay the ‘duty’. On the other hand, the right over the duty so paid is instant on the revenue and not a postponed entitlement. Therefore, an amount so determined as ‘duty’ by processing the Bill of Entry and collected by the Revenue can never be termed as a “deposit”, even assuming that such collection, later, is found to be either unlawful or excessive.
Madras High Court has held that an amount determined as ‘duty’ by processing the bill of entry and collected by the revenue department can never be termed as a ‘deposit’. It observed that ‘deposit’ is either offered by importer on their own or in compliance pending disposal of proceedings as an interim measure whereas ‘duty’ is a statutory liability collected as revenue. The Court hence allowed interest on delayed refund of the amount so collected earlier by the department. The Court observed that wrong or excessive collection of duty cannot make such collection as ‘deposit’ in the hands of the revenue department so as to escape the clutches of Section 27A of Customs Act, 1962. Further, taking note of the fact that there was no factual dispute between the parties except on the nomenclature of the amount paid by the petitioner, the High Court held the writ petition filed against adjudication order was maintainable.
FULL TEXT OF THE HIGH COURT ORDER / JUDGEMENT
The writ petition is filed challenging the Order in Original dated 22.02.2019, rejecting the interest claim made by the petitioner on the delayed refund amount of Rs.2,38,24,418/-.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
