Special refund scheme for reduced anti-dumping duty overrides general customs refund rules and supports interest on delayed repayment

Provisional anti-dumping duty reduced on final determination must be refunded under the special scheme in Section 9A of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, and that mechanism prevails over the general refund procedure in Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962. The refund cannot be denied on unjust enrichment grounds where the statute itself mandates repayment of excess duty collected after final assessment. Delayed retention of the excess amount can justify compensatory interest on restitutionary principles, and interest may run from a reasonable period after the final notification until payment.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether refund of excess anti-dumping duty collected on provisional levy was governed by Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962 or by the special scheme under Section 9A of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 read with the Anti Dumping Duty Rules; (ii) whether the refund claim could be denied on the ground of unjust enrichment; (iii) whether the importer was entitled to interest on delayed refund.

Issue (i): Whether refund of excess anti-dumping duty collected on provisional levy was governed by Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962 or by the special scheme under Section 9A of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 read with the Anti Dumping Duty Rules.

Analysis: Anti-dumping duty is levied under the special mechanism in Section 9A of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. Where provisional anti-dumping duty is later reduced on final determination, the statute itself requires refund of the excess collected. That special refund mechanism is not displaced by the general refund provision in Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962.

Conclusion: The refund claim was not barred by Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962 and the importer was entitled to refund under Section 9A of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975.

Issue (ii): Whether the refund claim could be denied on the ground of unjust enrichment.

Analysis: The refund arose directly from the statutory reduction of anti-dumping duty after final determination. The question of unjust enrichment under the Customs Act had no application to defeat the refund mandated by Section 9A(2) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975.

Conclusion: The objection based on unjust enrichment was rejected.

Issue (iii): Whether the importer was entitled to interest on delayed refund.

Analysis: Once the final notification fixed a lower duty, the excess retained by the Government belonged to the importer and ought to have been refunded within a reasonable time. Continued retention for years without legal sanction justified compensatory interest on principles of restitution and quasi-contract.

Conclusion: The importer was held entitled to interest at 12% per annum from three months after the final notification until payment.

Final Conclusion: The appeals were decided by directing refund of the excess anti-dumping duty together with interest, and the statutory refund mechanism was held to prevail over the general customs refund provision.

Ratio Decidendi: Where anti-dumping duty provisionally collected is reduced on final determination, the excess must be refunded under Section 9A of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, and the special refund scheme is not controlled by the general refund and unjust-enrichment provisions of the Customs Act, 1962.

---