2017 (1) TMI 281 - AT - Customs

Unjust enrichment - refund of ADD, amount transferred to the Consumer Welfare Fund in terms of Section 27 (2B) of the Customs Act, 1962 - Held that - The Chartered Accountant has certified that no extra levy has been collected from the customers. He has also certified that the amount encashed in the shape of Bank Guarantee is reflected in the book of appellant as amounts recoverable from the Customs authorities. None of these have been disputed by the Revenue - the appellants have discharged the onus of unjust enrichment - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Dispute over country of origin in imported goods, imposition of Anti Dumping duty, clearance of goods with Bank Guarantee, encashment of Bank Guarantee, refund of Anti Dumping duty, transfer of refunded amount to Consumer Welfare Fund, appeal before Tribunal.

Analysis:
The case involved a dispute regarding the country of origin of imported goods by M/s Hazel Mercantile Ltd., leading to the imposition of Anti Dumping duty. The goods were initially cleared by the Revenue upon obtaining a Bank Guarantee from the appellant. Subsequently, the Anti Dumping duty liability was decided against the appellant, resulting in the encashment of the Bank Guarantee. However, upon later granting relief on merits, the Anti Dumping duty became refundable. The refunded amount was sanctioned but transferred to the Consumer Welfare Fund under Section 27 (2B) of the Customs Act, 1962. The appellant challenged this decision before the Tribunal.

During the proceedings, the appellant presented a Chartered Accountant's certificate indicating that the amount was shown as "recoverable from Customs" in the Balance-sheet and had not been recovered from buyers. The appellant argued that the Anti Dumping duty paid could not have been recovered from customers based on the sales invoices. The Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the claim, emphasizing that the invoices were not related to the imports made.

In its analysis, the Tribunal noted that the C.A. certificate was not disregarded in the original and appellate orders. The Chartered Accountant confirmed that no extra levy was collected from customers and that the encashed Bank Guarantee amount was reflected as recoverable from Customs in the appellant's books. The Tribunal found that the Revenue did not dispute these facts, leading to the conclusion that the appellant had proven no unjust enrichment. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, overturning the decision to transfer the refunded amount to the Consumer Welfare Fund.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's judgment favored the appellant, recognizing the evidence presented through the C.A. certificate to establish the non-recovery of Anti Dumping duty from customers and the rightful refund of the encashed Bank Guarantee amount. The decision highlighted the importance of proper documentation and financial records in cases involving duty liabilities and refunds, ultimately ensuring a fair outcome for the appellant.