Refund of Excess
Fine and Penalty is a Matter of Right under Section 27 of CA, 1962
In The High Court of Kerala AAt
Ernakulam
WP(C). No. 6704 of 2009(G)
1. P. P. Suresh, Pathiyamparambil,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. Assistant Commissioner of Customs ...
Respondent
For Petitioner :
Sri. P. A. Augustian
For Respondent :
Sri. Thomas Mathew Nellimoottil, SC, CB EX
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.N. Ravindran
Dated: 24/09/2009
O R D E R
P.N. Ravindran
====================
WP(C) No. 6704 of 2009 - G
====================
Judgment –
Heard Sri. T.R. Jagadeesh, the learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner and Sri. Thomas Mathew Nellimoottil,
the learned senior standing counsel appearing for the Central Board of Excise
and Customs.
2. The
petitioner, a non-resident Indian, who returned home in the year 2006, imported
used household articles under the Transfer of Residence Rules. On the ground
that the household articles were imported in commercial quantities, the
Assistant Commissioner passed Ext.P2 order confiscating the said goods. He also
ordered that it will be open to the petitioner to pay a redemption fine of Rs.1,40,000/- in lieu of confiscation. He also imposed a penalty
of Rs.60,000/- on the petitioner. The petitioner
remitted the said sum of Rs.2,00,000/-. He also went
in appeal. By Ext.P3 order passed on 26.4.2007, the Commissioner of Customs
(Appeals), reduced the redemption fine to Rs.1,00,000/-.
The order imposing penalty of Rs.60,000/- was upheld.
The petitioner had, after the first appeal filed by him was disposed of by
Ext.P3 order, made a request for refund of the excess sum of Rs.40,000/- remitted by him as redemption fine. He thereafter
filed a revision petition before the Government of India. By Ext.P5 order
passed on 26.5.2008, the Government of India reduced the redemption fine from
Rs.1,00,000/- to Rs.70,000/- and the penalty from
Rs.60,000/- to Rs.30,000/-. In other words, the liability of the petitioner
stood reduced from Rs.2,00,000/- originally fixed by
the Assistant Commissioner to Rs.1,00,000/- under both heads. The petitioner
thereupon moved the respondents seeking refund of the sum of Rs.1,00,000/-. As the said request was not considered and refund
made, this writ petition was filed seeking a writ in the nature of mandamus
commanding the respondents to refund the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- paid in excess by
the petitioner.
3. The respondent
has filed a counter affidavit and an additional counter affidavit raising
various technical grounds including the contention that the claim for refund is
time-barred. The respondent does not dispute the fact that by Ext.P5 order, the
redemption fine and penalty stands reduced from Rs.2,00,000/- to Rs.1,00,000/-.
As an officer of the Government of India, even without the petitioner making a
claim for refund, the respondent had a duty to inform him that he had a right
to obtain refund of the excess sum of Rs.1,00,000/-
remitted by him. It is strange that even though the original order passed by
him was modified by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) and further modified
in revision by the Government, the respondent is declining to give effect to
the revisional order. As an officer of the Government
of India, the respondent has a duty to be fair in his dealings with citizens.
The petitioner's liability to pay redemption fine and penalty stands limited to
the sum of Rs.1,00,000/-. The respondent is an officer
subordinate to the Government of India and also to the Commissioner of Customs
(Appeals). Therefore, he is bound to give effect to the orders passed by the
superior authorities. In my opinion, the technical pleas raised by the
respondent cannot result in the petitioner being found liable to pay any amount
in excess of the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as fixed by the
Government of India in revision. Otherwise, it will lead to unjust enrichment
and will render the appellate and revisional remedies
illusory. I accordingly hold that the petitioner is entitled to refund of the
excess sum of Rs.1,00,000/- paid by him as redemption
fine and penalty.
4. In the result,
I allow this writ petition and direct the respondent to refund to the
petitioner the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- within two weeks
from the date on which he produces a certified copy of this judgment, before
him.