2023 (9) TMI 936 - AT - Customs

Refund of anti dumping duty wrongly paid by the assessee - Denial on the ground that the refund sought under Section 27 cannot be given to the party as Customs Act And Customs Tariff Act 1962 and Customs Tariff Act 1975 are different legislations and anti dumping law and provisional and final impositions are dealt with under Customs Tariff Act - HELD THAT - The notification relied upon by the AR remains confined to enlisted refund cases as are mentioned in Section 9AA which are typically in the nature of refund cases which arise due to differential duty being imposed at preliminary and final stages. In fact the title of the Notification itself says this goods may be called the refund of anti dumping duty (paid in excess of actual margin of dumping). Section 9AA Customs Tariff Act deals only with those specified cases of refund where done the limitation is governed by the aforesaid Notification No. 05/2012-Customs (Non-Tariff). However there is no bar on the refund arising otherwise in distinct situations to be allowed. In view of the fact that refund in this particular case arose due to pronouncement by court of law that anti dumping duty whatsoever was not payable by the party - the situation is very much governed by Section 27 of the Customs Act due to same having been borrowed in the Customs Tariff Act by Section 9A(8) which clearly indicates that even Custom Tariff Act envisages situations where refund could arise even in anti dumping otherwise in listed situations. There are no difficulty in holding the order of the lower authority is not sustainable. Appeal is accordingly allowed.

Summary

Issues involved:
The judgment involves the issue of whether a refund of anti-dumping duty wrongly paid by the assessee, which was upheld by the Tribunal, could be denied by the department based on the argument that the refund sought under Section 27 cannot be given as Customs Act, Customs Tariff Act, 1962, and Customs Tariff Act, 1975 are different legislations.

Summary:
The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Ahmedabad concerned the question of whether a refund of anti-dumping duty, which was determined to be wrongly paid by the assessee and upheld by the Tribunal, could be denied by the department. The issue revolved around the interpretation of Section 9A(8) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, which allows for refunds in cases not enumerated in Section 9AA. The appellant argued that their refund application was maintainable and grantable under the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962, as the duty was deemed to be wrongly paid by the Court.

The Tribunal considered the submissions of both parties and examined Notification No. 05/2012-Cus (N.T) dated 19.01.2012, which sets a time limit for filing refunds under Section 9AA. It was noted that this notification pertains to specific refund cases mentioned in Section 9AA, related to differential duty imposed at preliminary and final stages. However, the Tribunal found that there is no restriction on refunds in distinct situations not covered by Section 9AA. In this case, the refund arose due to a court ruling that the anti-dumping duty was not payable by the party, aligning with the provisions of Section 27 of the Customs Act borrowed in the Customs Tariff Act by Section 9A(8).

Based on the analysis, the Tribunal concluded that the lower authority's decision was not sustainable, and the appeal was allowed. The cross objection was also disposed of by rejecting the same. The judgment highlighted the importance of interpreting the legislative provisions accurately to ensure the appropriate application of refund regulations in specific scenarios.