2016 (7) TMI 1161 - HC - Customs

Refund - Levy of anti-dumping duty - import of 1.9 mm clear float glass from China - According to the petitioner, since the goods were not being cleared, the petitioner under duress and under protest, deposited the said sum of ₹ 3,72,790/ on 14.05.2015 with the Customs Authorities. However, since according to the petitioner, no anti dumping duty was leviable on the product which was imported, the petitioner applied to the authorities to refund such sum, which was unauthorizedly collected from the petitioner. Held that - the department has not produced any document suggesting that anti dumping duty was leviable on the product in question imported from China. The petitioner s assertions before the authorities as well as in the petition in this respect have not been disputed by the department at any stage. When a duty is collected wholly without authority of law and therefore, without jurisdiction, the question of alternative remedy becomes insignificant, to suggest that the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner dated 26.08.2015 is appealable is not quite correct. It is a mere communication refusing the petitioner s request for refund on the ground that he has no power to suomotu allow refund and it is not an order which is appealable. Even if it were to be so, we would have exercised our jurisdiction to strike down the same. Refund to be granted with interest - Decided in favor petitioner.

Summary

Issues:
Prayer for refund of antidumping duty amount collected by Customs Department.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Facts of the Case:
The petitioner, a company engaged in manufacturing glass items, imported 200 sheets of clear float glass from China. Customs Department demanded total duties of &8377; 6,93,756/-. Despite paying this amount, the goods were not cleared, and an additional anti-dumping duty of &8377; 3,72,790/- was imposed. The petitioner paid this under protest and later sought a refund, contending that no anti-dumping duty was applicable to the imported product.

2. Correspondence with Customs Department:
The petitioner wrote to the Deputy Commissioner seeking a refund, citing the absence of applicable anti-dumping duty. In response, the Deputy Commissioner advised the petitioner to seek re-assessment or file an appeal against the duty determination. The department did not dispute the absence of anti-dumping duty for the imported product.

3. Judicial Analysis:
The High Court observed that no document indicated the leviability of anti-dumping duty on the imported product. The department did not challenge the petitioner's claim that the duty was unauthorized. The Court rejected the department's suggestion to appeal against the Deputy Commissioner's decision, emphasizing that the duty collection was illegal. The Court asserted its authority to strike down the order, as it was based on an unauthorized collection.

4. Decision and Order:
The Court allowed the petition, directing the respondent to refund the &8377; 3,72,790/- with 8% simple interest from the deposit date to be refunded by 31.05.2016. The Court disposed of the petition, emphasizing the unauthorized nature of the duty collection and the lack of appealable orders in this context.

This judgment highlights the importance of lawful duty collection by Customs authorities and the court's power to intervene when duties are collected without legal basis. The ruling ensures that importers are not burdened with unauthorized duties and can seek redress through the judicial system when faced with such situations.