2017 (8) TMI 1261 - AT - Customs

Refund claim of ADD - time limitation - denial on the ground that the appellant had not requested for re-assessment of bill of entry - sub section (2) of Section 9A of Customs Tariff Act, 1975 - Held that - It is very much clear from Rule 9A (2) that in case by final notification, the ADD is reduced, the excess paid is to be refunded - the issue is squarely covered by the decision in the case of CAPRIHANS INDIA LTD. Versus COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, BOMBAY 2001 (3) TMI 126 - CEGAT, COURT NO. I, NEW DELHI , where it was held that After the issue of the final notification dated 18-1-1994, the Government had no semblance of right to retain the money belonging to the importer. Government was retaining the importer s money without any legal sanction. When money of the importer was wrongly retained by the Government and was utilising it for its own purpose, the principle underlying quasi contract or restitution must apply - the rejection of refund is unjustified - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Rejection of refund claim of the Antidumping duty (ADD).

Analysis:
The case involved the rejection of a refund claim for excess Antidumping duty (ADD) paid by the appellants due to a reduction in the duty as per a final notification. The appellants imported Mulberry Silk Fabric from China and paid ADD based on a provisional estimate. Subsequently, the final ADD was reduced, leading to an excess payment by the appellants. The original authority rejected the refund claim stating it was premature as there was no request for re-assessment of the bill of entry. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the rejection, citing that the claim was time-barred. The appellant contended that there was no time limit prescribed for ADD refund under Section 9A of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, and referred to a relevant case law to support their argument.

The learned counsel for the appellant argued that the authorities had wrongly rejected the refund claim and highlighted Section 9A(2) of the Customs Tariff Act, which allows for ADD refund without specifying a time limit. On the other hand, the learned Additional Commissioner supported the impugned order, stating that the refund claim was premature due to the provisional assessment of the bill of entry. The tribunal examined the relevant legal provisions and a previous decision by a Larger Bench concerning the refund of excess ADD. The tribunal emphasized that if the ADD is reduced by a final notification, the excess amount paid must be refunded promptly. The tribunal concluded that the rejection of the refund was unjustified, setting aside the impugned order and allowing the appeal with consequential reliefs, if any.

In conclusion, the tribunal's decision was based on the clear legal provisions regarding ADD refund and the obligation to promptly refund any excess amount paid due to a reduction in ADD as per a final notification. The tribunal's ruling aligned with the principles established in a previous case law, emphasizing the importer's entitlement to refund in accordance with statutory provisions.