2016 (3) TMI 508 - AT - Customs

Refund claim in terms of Section 27 of the Customs Act - Rejected being time barred - Anti-dumping duty paid on PVC film - Exempted vide Notification No. 354/108/2010-TRU dated 24/01/2011 - Held that - limitation prescribed under Section 27 would not be applicable to the refund of excess anti-dumping duty paid in terms of the provisional notifications, which attained finality subsequently. Also the refund is within the period of one year from the date of the final corrigendum issued to the provisionally assessed duty. Therefore the refund is granted. - Decided in favour of appellant with consequential relief

Summary

Issues:
Refund claim under Section 9AA vs. Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962.

Analysis:
The appellant imported PVC film subject to anti-dumping duty imposed via Notification No. 79/2010. The appellant paid &8377; 4,70,046/- as duty and later sought a refund upon exemption of PVC film from anti-dumping duty through a corrigendum. The refund claim was filed for two Bills of Entries (B/Es) dated 10/08/2010 and 30/08/2010. The Adjudication Authority sanctioned a partial refund of &8377; 2,45,278/- for one B/E but rejected the refund claim of &8377; 2,24,768/- for the other B/E as time-barred.

On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the rejection citing that the refund application was presumed to be under Section 27 of the Customs Act, which has a six-month time limit. The appellant contended that the claim should be considered under Section 9AA for anti-dumping duty refunds, citing a Delhi High Court decision that Section 27 does not apply to such refunds.

The tribunal agreed with the appellant, stating that the limitation under Section 27 does not apply to anti-dumping duty refunds, especially when the duty imposition attains finality. Additionally, the refund claim was within one year of the final corrigendum. Consequently, the tribunal set aside the lower authorities' decision and allowed the appeal, granting any consequential relief to the appellant.

In conclusion, the judgment clarified the applicability of Section 9AA for anti-dumping duty refunds, emphasizing that Section 27 limitations do not restrict such claims once the duty imposition is finalized. The decision aligns with the Delhi High Court's interpretation, ensuring fair treatment for duty refunds in such cases.