9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (8) TMI 1261X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t 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. - C/95/2009 - Final Order No. 41654 / 2017 - Dated:- 7-8-2017 - Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial) And Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member (Technical) Shri S. Murugappan, Advocate for the Appellant Shri A. Cletus, Addl. Commissioner (AR) for the Respondent ORDER Per Bench The issue involved is the rejection of refund claim of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 62 (Tri LB). 4. Against this, the learned AR Shri A.Cletus strongly supported the impugned order. He submitted that the bill of entry was provisionally assessed and therefore the refund claim is premature without final assessment of the same. 5. Heard both sides. For better appreciation, the relevant portion of Rule 9A (2) is reproduced as under:- The Central Government may, pending the determination in accordance with the provisions of this section and the rules made thereunder of the normal value and the margin of dumping in relation to any article, impose on the importation of such article into India an anti-dumping duty on the basis of a provisional estimate of such value and margin and if such anti-dumping duty exceeds the m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to be quite reasonable. As per provisions contained in Section 9A of Customs Tariff Act, Central Government had no right to retain the excess amount collected by way of anti dumping duty on the basis of the provisional notification. In terms of the final notification, the excess amount collected earlier should have been returned. 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. Compensation to the im ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
