2010 (2) TMI 506 - HC - Customs

Importer entitled to refund of excess Anti-dumping duty under Customs Tariff Rules

HB. FIBRES LIMITED Versus CESTAT, NEW DELHI

The Court ruled in favor of the importer, holding that they were entitled to a refund of the excess Anti-dumping duty paid due to the revised rates of ... Anti dumping duty – wool waste - acrylic fibre - Rates of duty revised – Refund of excess duty paid - Provisional duty paid is higher than revised duty:- Held that - Assessee is only liable to pay revised Anti-dumping duty and since it has already paid the excess amount of provisional Anti-dumping duty, so Assessee is eligible to refund. Issues:1. Classification of goods - Wool Waste vs. Acrylic Fiber2. Refund of excess Anti-dumping duty paid by the importer3. Interpretation of Rule 21(2) of the Customs Tariff Rules, 1995Classification of Goods - Wool Waste vs. Acrylic Fiber:The case involved the import of goods declared as 'Wool Waste' by the assessee but later found to be Acrylic Fiber after examination and chemical analysis. The Commissioner of Customs initially classified the goods as Acrylic Fiber and assessed duty accordingly. The assessee contended that it should only pay the revised Anti-dumping duty and be refunded the excess amount already paid. The Tribunal upheld the decision, leading to further appeals.Refund of Excess Anti-dumping Duty:The central issue was whether the assessee was entitled to a refund of the excess Anti-dumping duty paid. The assessee argued that as per Rule 21(2) of the Customs Tariff Rules, if the duty fixed after investigation is lower than the provisional duty collected, the importer should receive a refund. The Tribunal, however, rejected this claim, leading to the present appeal.Interpretation of Rule 21(2) of the Customs Tariff Rules, 1995:The Court analyzed Rule 21(2) which states that the importer should receive a refund if the final duty is lower than the provisional duty. The Court referred to a previous judgment involving Acrylic Fiber imports where the duty rates were revised. The Court held that since the competent authority had revised and fixed the rates of Acrylic Fiber, the assessee was only liable to pay the revised rate. Therefore, the assessee was entitled to a refund of the excess duty paid provisionally.In conclusion, the Court accepted the appeal, setting aside the previous orders and ruling in favor of the assessee. The Court held that the assessee was entitled to the refund of the excess duty paid due to the revised rates of Anti-dumping duty. The judgment emphasized the application of Rule 21(2) in determining the refund entitlement based on the final duty rates.