2022 (5) TMI 27 - AT - Customs

Refund of Anti Dumping duty deposited by the appellant - import of PVC Resin (Emulsion) Grade - appellant has claimed that due to oversight they deposited Anti Dumping duty as per Notification No. 15.2013-Cus. (ADD) dated 03.07.2013, which had expired on 24.06.2015 - HELD THAT - Admittedly the Anti Dumping notification was valid till 24.06.2015 and the same have admittedly lapsed w.e.f. 25.06.2015, and as such no anti dumping duty was payable by the appellant with respect to the Bill of Entry filed on 26.06.2015. The Adjudicating Authority is directed to grant the refund within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order alonwtih interest as per rule - Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Whether the Court rightly rejected the refund of Anti Dumping duty deposited by the appellant for import of PVC Resin (Emulsion) Grade E7006.

Detailed Analysis:
The appellant imported PVC Resin Emulsion Grade-E7006 of German origin and deposited Anti Dumping duty based on an expired notification. The appellant filed a refund claim under Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962, which was rejected by the Adjudicating Authority. The rejection was based on the grounds that the Anti Dumping duty on PVC Emulsion resin from the European Union was valid till 24.06.2016 as per Notification No. 26/2015-Cus. (ADD) dated 01.06.2015.

The appellant appealed before the Commissioner (Appeals) arguing that the rejection was erroneous, citing a corrigendum and discriminatory practices among importers regarding Anti Dumping duty payments. The appellant contended that the Court erred in rejecting the refund despite acknowledging that Anti Dumping duty was not applicable on the date of filing the Bill of Entry. The appellant also referenced specific rulings to support their case.

The Authorized Representative for the Revenue relied on the impugned order during the proceedings. After considering the contentions, the Member (Judicial) found that the Anti Dumping notification had indeed lapsed on 25.06.2015, making no Anti Dumping duty payable by the appellant for the Bill of Entry filed on 26.06.2015. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the impugned order was set aside. The Adjudicating Authority was directed to grant the refund within 45 days along with interest as per rule.

In conclusion, the judgment clarified the issue regarding the validity of the Anti Dumping duty notification and the appellant's entitlement to a refund. The decision was based on the lapse of the notification and the absence of duty payable by the appellant, leading to the allowance of the appeal and the refund order.