Case Law Details
Abhilasha Impex Pvt. Limited Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Delhi)
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. Accordingly, I allow this appeal and set aside the impugned order. 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.
FULL TEXT OF THE CESTAT DELHI ORDER
The issue involved in this appeal is whether the Court below have rightly rejected the refund of Anti Dumping duty deposited by the appellant for import of PVC Resin (Emulsion) Grade E7006, vide Bill of Entry No. 9706294 dated 26.06.2015.
2. The appellant filed Bill of Entry No. 9706294 dated 26.06.2015 for import of 99.00 Mts. PVC Resin Emulsion Grade-E7006 C/a No. 50001 of 2020 of German origin. The 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. Thereafter, the appellant filed a refund claim of Anti Dumping duty amounting to Rs.16,94,684/- under Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962, in the office of the Assistant Commissioner of Customs (Refund), Inland Container Depot (Import), Tughlakabad, New Delhi on 27.07.2015.
3. The refund claim of the appellant was rejected by the Adjudicating Authority on the ground that the appellant had filed Bill of entry No. 9706294 dt. 26.06.2015 and the Anti Dumping duty on PVC Emulsion resin from European Union, remained valid till 24.06.2016 by virtue of Notification No. 26/2015-Cus. (ADD) dated 01.06.2015.
4. Being aggrieved, the appellant preferred appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) inter alia on the ground that the Assistant Commissioner has erred in rejecting the refund on the basis of corrigendum F.No.354/92/2015 – TRU dt. 28.03.2016. Further, the order-in-original is also discriminatory, as several importers during the said period after lapse of the Anti Dumping Notification w.e.f. 25.06.2015 has not paid the Anti Dumping duty, and the same was not demanded from them. It is further contended that both the Court below had held that Anti Dumping duty under Notification No. 15/2013 dt. 03.07.2013, read with the precedent Notification No. 70/2010-Cus. was valid till 24.06.2015. But they have erred in C/a No. 50001 of 2020 rejecting the refund inspite of recording the finding that Anti Dumping duty was not applicable on the date of filing of the Bill of Entry i.e. 26.06.2015. Accordingly, it is prayed that the appeal may be allowed with consequential benefits. Further, reliance is placed on the following ruling:-
i) Commissioner of Customs, Jodhpur vs. Mayur Uniquoters Ltd., -2017 (357) ELT 1101 (Tri. Del.).
ii) Forech India Ltd., vs. Designated Authority -2018 (361) ELT 671 (Del.).
ii) Union of India vs. Kumho Petrochemicals Co. Ltd., -2017 (351) ELT 65 (SC).
5. Learned Authorised Representative appearing for the Revenue relies on the impugned order.
6. Having considered the rival contentions, I find 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. Accordingly, I allow this appeal and set aside the impugned order. 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.
(Pronounced on 28.04.2022).
