2017 (1) TMI 279 - AT - Customs

Refund of provisional ADD - The Central Government of India, Department of Revenue by N/N. 25/2004-Cus dated 22.01.2004 rescinded the provisional anti-dumping N/N. 141/03-Cus - rejection on the ground that since provisional anti-dumping duty was leviable during relevant time, it was correctly paid and collected - Held that - The anti-dumping duty either provisional or definitive is imposed under Section 9A of the Customs Tariff Act and as prescribed Rules for collection of anti-dumping duty. Provisions of Rule 21(3) of Customs Tariff (Identification, Assessment and Collection of anti-dumping duty on dumped articles and for Determination of Injury) Rules, 1995 are very clear and unambiguous and they provide for refund of provisionally collected anti-dumping duty if the said provisional anti-dumping duty is withdrawn in accordance with the Rules - similar issue decided in the case of Rao Insulating Company Ltd. 2007 (1) TMI 403 - CESTAT, BANGALORE , where the refund was allowed - refund allowed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Refund of provisional anti-dumping duty paid by the appellant.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to two appeals against Orders-in-Appeal regarding the refund of anti-dumping duty paid by the appellant. The appellant had paid provisional anti-dumping duty as per notification no. 141/03-Cus, subject to the imposition of definitive anti-dumping duty. However, the designated authority recommended a 'nil' rate of anti-dumping duty for the goods imported by the appellants. Subsequently, the Central Government rescinded the provisional anti-dumping duty notification, leading the appellant to apply for a refund. Both lower authorities rejected the refund claims, stating that the provisional duty was correctly paid and collected during the relevant period. The Tribunal found that the lower authorities did not consider the law correctly. The Tribunal highlighted that as per Rule 21(3) of Customs Tariff Rules, provisionally collected anti-dumping duty must be refunded if withdrawn in accordance with the rules. Since the provisional duty was withdrawn by notification 25/04, the Tribunal held that the duty collected should be returned to the appellant.

The Tribunal's decision was supported by the precedent set in the case of Rao Insulating Company Ltd. The Tribunal in that case emphasized the clarity of Rule 21(3) regarding the refund of provisionally collected anti-dumping duty upon withdrawal of the provisional duty. The Tribunal rejected the interpretation by lower authorities that the duty paid cannot be refunded, emphasizing the unambiguous nature of the rule. Additionally, the Tribunal noted that the Chennai Customs had granted a refund order on a similar issue, which was accepted by the department. Based on the case laws and the clear provisions of Rule 21(3), the Tribunal found no merit in the impugned order and set it aside, allowing the appeal with consequential relief.

In conclusion, the Tribunal held that the impugned order was unsustainable and set it aside, allowing the appeals with consequential relief. The judgment emphasized the clear provisions of Rule 21(3) for the refund of provisionally collected anti-dumping duty upon withdrawal of the provisional duty, as supported by authoritative judicial pronouncements and precedents.