2017 (1) TMI 73 - HC - Customs

Rejection of refund claim - rule 5 - production of additional evidence - unjust enrichment - Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962 - Whether the adjudicating authority has refused to admit evidence which ought to have been admitted? - Whether the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from producing before the authority any evidence which is relevant to any ground of appeal? - Held that - certain amount of discretion in the matter of admitting additional evidence before the Commissioner (Appeals) was built into the Rule. The appellate authority is therefore required to apply his mind as to whether the plea of the appellant to admit additional evidence falls within the aforementioned four exceptions or not and then admit the additional/fresh evidence. Whereas the Commissioner (Appeals) has proceeded as if there is an absolute bar contained in Rule 5 from entertaining any such additional evidence. Clearly the approach adopted by the Commissioner of Appeals is erroneous. The anxiety is to confine the authorities concerned strictly to the requirements contained in the statute while making assessments of taxes/duties while at the same time allow the person concerned to press home such plea/material available which would mitigate his liability. Commissioner of Appeals and also the Tribunal have both grossly erred in not looking into the additional evidence which has been produced before the Appellate Commissioner - the additional evidence produced before the Commissioner of Appeals is liable to be acted upon as the exceptions carved out in Rule 5 are satisfied - question answered in favor of appellant - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
1. Admissibility of evidence refused by adjudicating authority
2. Appellant's inability to produce relevant evidence before authority

Analysis:

Issue 1: Admissibility of evidence refused by adjudicating authority
The appellant-importer filed Bill of Entry and later requested to amend it, which was not accepted by the adjudicating authority leading to confiscation of goods. The Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) allowed the appeal, highlighting that the confiscation was unnecessary due to the minor duty difference. Subsequently, a claim for duty refund was filed under Section 27 of the Customs Act. The Deputy Commissioner of Customs (Refunds) rejected the claim citing insufficient evidence to rule out unjust enrichment. The Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) also denied the claim, emphasizing the inability to consider additional evidence. The judgment analyzed Rule 5 of the Customs (Appeals) Rules,1982, which allows exceptions for admitting evidence, and concluded that the Appellate Commissioner erred in rejecting relevant evidence crucial for the refund claim.

Issue 2: Appellant's inability to produce relevant evidence before authority
The judgment discussed the discretion of the Appellate Commissioner in admitting additional evidence under Rule 5 of the Customs (Appeals) Rules,1982. It highlighted that the importer faced technical difficulties in retrieving necessary information and presented sales invoices over time to demonstrate non-passing of duty to customers. Despite the relevance of this evidence, the Appellate Commissioner declined to consider it, contrary to the exceptions provided in Rule 5. The judgment emphasized the wide jurisdiction of the Appellate Tribunal under Section 129-B of the Customs Act, allowing for proper adjudication based on additional evidence if necessary. It cited Supreme Court precedents to support the view that authorities should assess tax liabilities accurately while allowing parties to present relevant material to mitigate their liability.

In conclusion, the judgment favored the appellant-importer, holding that the additional evidence should have been considered by the Commissioner of Appeals and the Tribunal. The orders denying the refund claim were set aside, and the matter was remitted back for fresh consideration.