Commr. of Cus. v. Vedanta Aluminium Ltd.

SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT


The Tax Publishers2019 TaxPub(EX) 354 2019 (366) E.L.T. 933 Commr. of Cus. v. Vedanta Aluminium Ltd. CUSTOMS ACT, 1962 --Correction of clerical errors, etc. --Mistake in bills of entry committed by CHARectification of error ----When assessee made a mistake by mentioning a wrong serial number of the notification and thereby paid excess duty, therefore their request for correction under section 154 was correctly not accepted by officers as plain reading of the section does not show that the officers do not have the power to correct mistakes made by the assessee under section 154.--Assessees imported 12863 MT of Calcined Petroleum Coke falling under Chapter Heading No. 27131200 and claimed exemption under Notification No. 21/2002-Cus 1-3-2002 (Sl. No. 77B). The bill of entry was assessed through RMS channel of EDI system by revenue and bill of entry was assessed to tariff rate of duty of 10% instead of concessional rate of 5% because they entered the wrong serial number in the exemption notification but they paid duty accordingly. They approached officers asking them to correct the mistake in their bill of entry under section 154 and got no response. Therefore, they filed a refund claim within the period along with certificate from CA to the effect there was no unjust enrichment in their case. Commissioner rejected the refund claim holding that assessment was completed and was not challenged by assessee. *Held:* Officer had right to reassess the bill of entry or shipping bills. Wherever this assessment is through Customs EDI system, the system selects assessment based on Risk Management System. Where the system does not select bill of entry for reassessment, the assessment made by importer or exporter is accepted and the goods are cleared. There was no assessment in this case and no mistake was committed clerical or arithmetical error by any officer. Admittedly, assessee importer made a mistake by mentioning a wrong serial number of the notification and thereby paid excess duty. Their request for correction under section 154 was correctly not accepted by officers as plain reading of the section does not show that the officers do not have the power to correct mistakes made by assessee under section 154. SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT

The Tax Publishers2019 TaxPub(EX) 354 2019 (366) E.L.T. 933

Commr. of Cus. v. Vedanta Aluminium Ltd.

CUSTOMS ACT, 1962

--Correction of clerical errors, etc. --Mistake in bills of entry committed by CHARectification of error ----When assessee made a mistake by mentioning a wrong serial number of the notification and thereby paid excess duty, therefore their request for correction under section 154 was correctly not accepted by officers as plain reading of the section does not show that the officers do not have the power to correct mistakes made by the assessee under section 154.--Assessees imported 12863 MT of Calcined Petroleum Coke falling under Chapter Heading No. 27131200 and claimed exemption under Notification No. 21/2002-Cus 1-3-2002 (Sl. No. 77B). The bill of entry was assessed through RMS channel of EDI system by revenue and bill of entry was assessed to tariff rate of duty of 10% instead of concessional rate of 5% because they entered the wrong serial number in the exemption notification but they paid duty accordingly. They approached officers asking them to correct the mistake in their bill of entry under section 154 and got no response. Therefore, they filed a refund claim within the period along with certificate from CA to the effect there was no unjust enrichment in their case. Commissioner rejected the refund claim holding that assessment was completed and was not challenged by assessee. Held: Officer had right to reassess the bill of entry or shipping bills. Wherever this assessment is through Customs EDI system, the system selects assessment based on Risk Management System. Where the system does not select bill of entry for reassessment, the assessment made by importer or exporter is accepted and the goods are cleared. There was no assessment in this case and no mistake was committed clerical or arithmetical error by any officer. Admittedly, assessee importer made a mistake by mentioning a wrong serial number of the notification and thereby paid excess duty. Their request for correction under section 154 was correctly not accepted by officers as plain reading of the section does not show that the officers do not have the power to correct mistakes made by assessee under section 154.