Order date – 09 November 2022

 Facts –

• The Appellant, M/s. Sai Exports imported consignment of 100% Knitted Polyester Fabrics vide various Bills of Entry. They declared a price between USD 2.26 per kg and USD 4.0 per kg. After examination, the department enhanced the price and the declared value was thus rejected by the department. The appellant paid the duty under protest and cleared the goods.
• The enhancement of value of goods was ultimately set aside by the Tribunal in regard to Bills of Entry under dispute. Based on the final orders passed by the Tribunal, the appellant vide letter dated 06.04.2018 requested the department to carry out the final assessment. No action was taken by the department for the same.
• The appellant had filed a refund request and it was rejected on the ground that refund claim is filed is beyond one year from the date of CESTAT order, it has not attained finality and is premature for claiming refund and the appellant had not produced documents required for processing the refund claim.

Issue –

• Whether the rejection of refund claim on the grounds of time-bar, premature and being incomplete is legal and proper.

Order –

• The Tribunal observed Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962 and second proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 27 states that limitation of one year shall not apply when the duty is paid under protest. In the present case, there is no dispute that the appellant had paid the duty under protest. 
• The Tribunal also finds that except for which has been provided in the section, the limitation of one year has to be computed from the date on which the judgment, decree or order of court has been passed. Thus, the operation of sub-section (1B) will not come into application when the duty is paid under protest.
• Further, it is the duty of the department to conduct reassessment in consequence to the orders passed by the Tribunal which has set aside the enhancement of the value of imported goods. 
• Even after accepting the final order of Tribunal, they have not passed an order of final reassessment. The inaction on the side of the department cannot be a ground to reject the refund claim as premature.
• Hence the tribunal held that that rejection of refund claim on the ground of time-bar and premature is set aside. The department is directed to complete the re-assessment and then process the refund claim.