2016 (12) TMI 517 - AT - Customs

Refund claim - Anti Dumping duty - claim of refund on the ground that the Sunset review order issued by the competent authority, Govt. of India vide Notification No. 111/2002 dated 21.9.2002 has reduced the Anti Dumping duty 10.27% as against earlier prescribed rate of 27.97% as per Notification No. 74/2000 - Held that - I find that Order-in-Original grants partial relief to the appellant to the extent for the period 1.4.2000 to 31.3.2001, which held that the appellants are entitled to refund of the Anti Dumping subject to production of necessary documents. Since Revenue has not contested this order, it is not open to Commissioner (Appeals) to change it in any manner other than in respect of issue on which the appellant had filed an appeal. Thus, the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) which deals with period 1.4.2000 to 31.3.2001 is set aside. The second issue arose in impugned order pertaining invocation of the clause of unjust enrichment. The issue is premature in so far as such issue arises only if refund is held to be admissible. In the instant case, both the lower authorities have found it to be inadmissible and therefore their observations regarding unjust enrichment are superfluous and are set aside. The refund can be sanctioned only when an order in terms of Section 9AA (i) is passed. I hold that refund cannot be sanctioned under Section 9AA to the appellants on the strength of any order issued under clause (5) of Section 9A. The impugned order is set aside in so far as it relates to refund for the period 1.4.2000 to 31.3.2001 and the matter is remanded to the original adjudicating authority. The appellants are free to produce necessary documents - appeal disposed off - decided partly in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Change of name application by the appellant.
2. Refund claim for Anti Dumping duty.
3. Refund eligibility under Section 9AA of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975.
4. Doctrine of unjust enrichment.
5. Authority to pass orders under Section 9AA.

Analysis:
1. The appellant, M/s Puneet Resins Ltd., sought a change of name to Rishiroop Limited, supported by a Certificate of Incorporation. The Tribunal allowed the name change application based on the provided documentation.

2. The importer filed a refund claim for Anti Dumping duty due to a reduction in duty rates post a Sunset review order. The original adjudicating authority allowed the refund for a specific period but rejected it due to lack of documentation. The Commissioner (Appeals) later held no refund was available, citing unjust enrichment. The Tribunal set aside the Commissioner's order regarding the period in question as it was not contested by Revenue.

3. The appellant argued for refund eligibility under Section 9AA, contending that the Anti Dumping margin was lower than the duty paid. The Tribunal agreed that Section 9AA is a self-contained code for refunds and that the refund cannot be granted solely based on a review order under Section 9A.

4. The issue of unjust enrichment was deemed premature as both lower authorities found the refund inadmissible. The Tribunal set aside any observations on unjust enrichment as the refund was not held to be admissible.

5. The Tribunal clarified that an order under Section 9AA (i) must be passed for refund eligibility, emphasizing the need for the appellant to prove excess duty payment to claim a refund. The impugned order was set aside concerning the refund period, and the matter was remanded to the original adjudicating authority for further review based on necessary documentation.

In conclusion, the Tribunal partially allowed the appeal, emphasizing the importance of meeting the requirements under Section 9AA for refund claims and setting aside the Commissioner's decision on the refund period.