Refund granted for incorrect Anti-Dumping Duty payment on Porcelain Tiles

Classic Granites Versus Commissioner Of Customs

Classic Granites Versus Commissioner Of Customs - TMI Issues:
1. Effective date of Anti-Dumping Duty Notification
2. Refund eligibility without challenging self-assessment

Effective date of Anti-Dumping Duty Notification:
The appeal challenged the rejection of a refund application for Anti-Dumping Duty paid on Polished Porcelain Tiles. The appellant filed Bill of Entry on 29.03.2016, paying duties including Anti-Dumping Duty. However, it was later revealed that the Anti-Dumping Duty Notification was published in the Gazette on 02.04.2016, not in force when the Bill of Entry was filed. The appellant sought a refund of Rs. 21,11,100, arguing that the payment was a mistake. The Tribunal analyzed the evidence, including an RTI reply, confirming the Notification's publication date. Citing legal precedents and Customs Act amendments, the Tribunal held that the duty was paid in error, as the Notification was not in force on the filing date.

Refund eligibility without challenging self-assessment:
The appellant contested the denial of refund on the grounds of not challenging the assessment made during self-assessment. The Tribunal noted Customs Act amendments, emphasizing self-assessment post-amendment, where importers cannot challenge their own assessments. Relying on various decisions, including a Delhi High Court case, the Tribunal ruled that post-amendment, refund claims must be entertained even without challenging self-assessment. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal with consequential relief.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues, arguments, evidence, legal precedents, and the Tribunal's reasoning leading to the final decision in favor of the appellant.