Important points:
The dual payment made by the petitioner in this writ petition cannot be described as excess payment, in the sense contemplated by Section 19 of the Lighthouse Act, 1927. What is effected by the petitioner is a dual payment or duplicate payment. The petitioner was forced to make such dual payment due to the failure of the web portal system to generate a receipt, when the petitioner made the first payment through the web portal

JUDGMENT :

The writ petitioner, a company in the business of shipping agents, is before this Court seeking to direct the 2nd respondent-Commissioner of Customs to return to the petitioner the duplicate payment of Rs.6,33,144/- made by the petitioner under Ext.P2.

2. The petitioner was Agent of the vessel M. V. Cape Chronos. The vessel was to call at Cochin Port Trust on 09.05.2016. The vessel was expected to arrive in the evening. In the morning, the petitioner remitted Light Dues amounting to Rs.6,33,144/-through the web portal of the Director General of Lighthouses and Lightships (DGLL). However, the receipt was not generated by the web portal. The petitioner was under the impression that the online payment had not gone through. The vessel was to arrive in the evening and in the absence of proof of payment of Light Dues, the petitioner would have faced difficulties. The petitioner therefore made a manual payment of Rs.6,33,144/-before the Cochin Customs, for which Ext.P2 receipt was issued. On the following day, the petitioner-Company received receipt for the payment made online. The petitioner accordingly and unintentionally made dual payment.

3. The petitioner would submit that though the double payment was made in the year 2016, due to the resignation of the Accountant of the petitioner soon thereafter, the petitioner failed to take appropriate steps to get back the duplicate payment made. When the Auditors of the petitioner noted the dual payment, the petitioner submitted Ext.P3 letter to the 2nd respondent-Commissioner of Customs seeking repayment of the duplicate payment. Ext.P3 was acknowledged as per Ext.P4 dated 31.05.2018.

4. The 2nd respondent, however, instead of repaying the duplicate payment, advised the petitioner to file an application for refund before the Assistant Commissioner of Customs (Refunds). The petitioner accordingly made an application on 23.08.2018. The Assistant Commissioner of Customs rejected the petitioner's application for refund as per Ext.P5 dated 05.10.2018, on the ground that the claim was made after the period of six months prescribed under the Lighthouse Act, 1927. The petitioner, aggrieved by Ext.P5, submitted Ext.P6 application before the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) on 15.10.2018. On the Commissioner's advise, the petitioner filed a statutory appeal against Ext.P5 order. The Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), by Ext.P9 order, dismissed the appeal filed under the Customs Act, 1962 holding that the appeal was filed beyond the period of limitation.

5. The counsel for the petitioner would submit that the dual payment made by the petitioner cannot be treated as excess payment as contemplated under Section 9 of the Lighthouse Act, 1927. Therefore, statutory limitation for claiming excess payment would not be applicable to the case. The petitioner was ill-advised to resort to an inappropriate statutory remedy by the Customs authorities. According to the petitioner, the payment made by them as per Ext.P1 was not excess payment. The claim of the petitioner is for reimbursement of “Amount paid twice”. The respondents are therefore compellable to make repayment of the amount inadvertently paid by the petitioner.

6. The 2nd respondent filed a statement in the writ petition as directed by this Court. The 2nd respondent stated that Ext.P9 order is appealable before the CESTAT. The petitioner has not impleaded necessary parties. The 2nd respondent further submitted that Light Dues are not customs revenue though it is collected by the Customs authorities. The Customs authorities collect Light Dues on behalf of DGLL and the amounts will be transferred to DGLL. Therefore, refund cannot be granted by the Customs authorities.

7. The petitioner thereupon impleaded the DGLL as additional 3rd respondent. The additional 3rd respondent stated that a claim for refund has to be presented in ILH–Form 10 in duplicate, to the officer of the Customs. Repayment can be made only with the special authority of Ministry