2025 (7) TMI 360 - AT - Customs

CESTAT allows anti-dumping duty refund appeal, finds application filed within six-month limitation under Section 27

M/s. Kaveri Silks & Jute Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Customs, Chennai Sea Port Imports Custom House, Chennai

CESTAT Chennai allowed the appeal regarding anti-dumping duty refund. The Appellate Authority had dismissed the refund claim as time-barred, but CESTAT ... Seeking permission to file additional documents - refund of anti- dumping duty already sanctioned and disbursed which was directed to be recovered - HELD THAT:- It is seen from the impugned order that the Appellate Authority while recording that a cross objection has been filed by the Respondent, has however, summarily dismissed the same stating that they have simply reproduced the points discussed in the impugned order. Upon perusing the cross objection filed as produced in the appeal records, it is seen that the appellant has categorically averred that refund claim was filed on 28.06.2008 and that it was therefore filed within the time limit period. It is seen that this letter dated 28.06.2008 submitting the original documents and seeking refund, filed after the Order in Original no.7678/08 dated 23.04.2008 was thus filed merely two months after the said order dated 23.04.2008 which held that the appellant is entitled to consequential benefits. It was therefore within the time limit of six months stipulated in Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962 during the relevant period. In as much as neither the Appellate Authority, nor the department has controverted this categorical assertion, duly evidenced by the aforesaid letter which has been annexed to the appeal preferred, the findings in the impugned order in appeal that the claim was filed beyond the time limit and is therefore time barred, cannot be sustained. The impugner Order in Original to the extent it sets aside the portion of the order sanctioning refund of Anti-Dumping Duty, is wholly untenable and cannot be sustained. The Order in Appeal is hereby modified by setting aside the portion that has set aside the portion of the order of the refund sanctioning authority sanctioning the anti-dumping duty to the appellant - Appeal allowed. The core legal questions considered in this judgment include:1. Whether the refund claim for anti-dumping duty was filed within the prescribed limitation period under Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962.2. Whether the appellant was liable to pay anti-dumping duty on the imported mulberry raw silk based on the grade determined by sample testing.3. The validity and effect of the retesting of samples and subsequent orders on the applicability of anti-dumping duty.4. The correctness of the order setting aside the refund of anti-dumping duty and directing its recovery.Issue 1: Timeliness of the Refund Claim under Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962Legal Framework and Precedents: Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962 prescribes a limitation period of six months for filing a claim for refund of duty. The refund claim must be made within this period from the date of payment or the date of the order allowing such refund.Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Appellate Authority had held that the refund claim filed by the appellant was beyond the limitation period, relying on the date of 10.02.2010 as the date of filing. However, the appellant produced documentary evidence including letters dated 07.03.2007 and 28.06.2008 requesting refund, with the latter being only two months after the Order in Original No.7677/08 dated 24.04.2008 which held that anti-dumping duty was not applicable.The Court noted that the Appellate Authority summarily dismissed the appellant's cross objection which asserted that the refund claim was filed on 28.06.2008 within the six-month period. The appellant's assertion was supported by contemporaneous documents and an affidavit. The Court found that the Department and the Appellate Authority did not controvert or disprove these facts.Application of Law to Facts: Given the uncontested evidence that the refund claim was filed within six months of the order negating anti-dumping duty liability, the Court held that the refund claim was not time barred.Competing Arguments: The Department contended the claim was filed late, but failed to provide evidence disproving the appellant's documented refund requests. The Appellate Authority accepted the Department's position without adequately considering the appellant's evidence.Conclusion: The Court concluded that the refund claim was timely and the finding of the Appellate Authority that the claim was barred by limitation was unsustainable.Issue 2: Applicability of Anti-Dumping Duty Based on Sample Testing and RetestingLegal Framework and Precedents: Anti-dumping duty was leviable on Mulberry Raw Silk (MRS) of grade 2A and below imported from China, as per Notification Nos. 106/2003 and 136/2003. The grade of the imported goods was determinative of liability.Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: Initial testing of one sample indicated grade 2A, triggering anti-dumping duty. The appellant requested testing of additional samples, which revealed grades 3A and 4A, exempt from duty. The appellant further requested retesting of the initial sample, which was initially rejected by the lower authority but later ordered by the Commissioner (Appeals).The retesting by CSTRI, Bangalore confirmed the goods were grade 3A, exempting them from anti-dumping duty. The lower authority accepted this retest result and ordered consequential benefits to the appellant.Application of Law to Facts: The Court recognized the principle that when a sampling error is demonstrated-particularly when the majority of goods are of a higher grade-the importer is entitled to retesting. The subsequent confirmation of the higher grade negated the anti-dumping duty liability.Competing Arguments: The Department initially demanded duty and imposed fines and penalties based on the first test. The appellant challenged this, relying on the retesting results. The Court accepted the appellant's position as supported by evidence.Conclusion: The Court affirmed that the goods were grade 3A and not liable to anti-dumping duty, validating the retesting process and findings.Issue 3: Validity of the Order Setting Aside Refund and Ordering RecoveryLegal Framework and Precedents: The refund sanctioning authority had ordered refund of anti-dumping duty, fine, and penalty paid by the appellant. The Department appealed on limitation grounds, and the Appellate Authority partly allowed the appeal, setting aside the refund of anti-dumping duty and ordering its recovery.Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court found that the impugned order was passed ex-parte and after undue delay, and that it was based on an incorrect appreciation of facts, particularly regarding the date of refund claim filing. The Court emphasized the appellant's documented refund requests and the acceptance of the retest results negating duty liability.Application of Law to Facts: Since the refund claim was timely and the goods were not liable to anti-dumping duty, the order setting aside the refund and directing recovery was flawed.Competing Arguments: The Department maintained the refund was time barred and the duty payable, but failed to rebut the appellant's evidence. The Appellate Authority dismissed the cross objection summarily without adequate reasoning.Conclusion: The Court modified the impugned order by setting aside the portion that reversed the refund sanctioning authority's order and directed that the refund amount not be recovered.Significant Holdings and Core Principles Established:'The findings in the impugned order in appeal that the claim was filed beyond the time limit and is therefore time barred, cannot be sustained.''The order setting aside the portion of the order sanctioning refund of Anti-Dumping Duty is wholly untenable and cannot be sustained.''The direction in the impugned Order in Appeal that the refund amount sanctioned should be recovered, is also set aside.'The Court established that where an importer challenges the grade determination of imported goods and successfully demonstrates through retesting that the goods are not liable to anti-dumping duty, the importer is entitled to consequential benefits including refund of duty paid.The Court also underscored that refund claims must be considered in light of the actual date of filing supported by documentary evidence, and that limitation periods under Section 27 of the Customs Act are strictly but fairly applied, ensuring justice is not defeated by technicalities.Finally, the Court emphasized the necessity of proper adjudication of cross objections and the inadmissibility of summary dismissal without addressing substantive assertions.