2019 (1) TMI 982

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Ltd., Mangalore for the import of one consignment of an item called L-Methionine 99% Feed Grade falling under the CTH 29304000. The said Bill of Entry was self-assessed and customs duty of Rs. 16,40,957/- was paid considering merit rate of custom duty of 25.26%. Later on it was realized by the appellant that the actual duty payable by them was Rs. 10,79,763/- at concessional rate of duty of 17.36% as per Customs Notification No.46/2011-Cus dt. 01/06/2011 when goods imported from an ASEAN nation in terms of ASEAN-India Free Trade Area Preferential Tariff Agreement. As per the appellant, they have paid excess duty to the extent of Rs. 5,61,194/- and after realizing their mistake, they immediately informed the Department vide letter dt. 16/09 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... been imported from Malaysia in terms of ASEAN-India Free Trade Area Preferential Tariff Agreement. The learned counsel further submitted that in the present case, neither classification nor valuation of goods is under challenge. Further there is no dispute about the description and quantity of the imported goods and therefore there was no reason for the appellant to challenge the assessment by filing the appeal. He further submitted that under Section 154 of the Customs Act, 1962, the error which has crept in Bill of Entry could be corrected by the Department as the appellant was entitled to exemption under Notification No.46/2011-Cus and he further submitted that the appellant failed to claim the benefit of Notification No.46/2011 due to s .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the goods were imported from Malaysia in terms of the ASEAN-India Free Trade Area Preferential Tariff Agreement. I also note that in the present case, there was no dispute about classification or valuation or description of the imported goods. Therefore there was no need to challenge the assessment. Further the original authority has also rejected the refund claim on doctrine of unjust enrichment. But the learned Commissioner(Appeals) has not discussed regarding the unjust enrichment. Further I find that the appellant has produced a certificate from the Chartered Accountant who after verification of the records has certified that the amount of duty paid is shown as receivables under the head Customs duty receivables in the books of account .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X