Refund of withdrawn anti-dumping duty depends on actual incidence, not mere accounting treatment or book entries.

Rule 21(3) treats provisional anti-dumping duty as refundable once the levy is withdrawn or rescinded, and the statutory refund cannot be defeated merely because a separate refund application was filed instead of a suo motu grant. Refund denial on unjust enrichment also requires proof that the duty burden was actually passed on; mere reflection of the amount as expenditure in the profit and loss account is not conclusive, and accounting entries alone do not establish recovery from buyers. A Chartered Accountant's certificate, read with the applicable customs guidance, may support non-passing of the incidence. The text states that refund with applicable interest was directed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether provisional anti-dumping duty withdrawn by the Central Government was refundable to the importer under the Anti Dumping Duties Rules, 1995 without insisting on a separate refund claim in the ordinary sense; (ii) Whether the refund could be denied on the ground of unjust enrichment merely because the amount was reflected as expenditure in the profit and loss account and the supporting Chartered Accountant's certificate was treated as insufficient.

Issue (i): Whether provisional anti-dumping duty withdrawn by the Central Government was refundable to the importer under the Anti Dumping Duties Rules, 1995 without insisting on a separate refund claim in the ordinary sense.

Analysis: Rule 21(3) was treated as a mandatory refund provision: where provisional anti-dumping duty had been collected and the levy was later withdrawn or rescinded, the amount was required to be refunded by the Department. The Tribunal held that the importer was compelled to file a refund claim only because the refund was not granted suo motu, and the statutory scheme itself did not permit denial of the refund once withdrawal of the duty had taken place.

Conclusion: The duty was refundable under the statutory rule and the claim could not be defeated on that ground.

Issue (ii): Whether the refund could be denied on the ground of unjust enrichment merely because the amount was reflected as expenditure in the profit and loss account and the supporting Chartered Accountant's certificate was treated as insufficient.

Analysis: The Tribunal held that accounting treatment by itself does not establish passing on of duty incidence. Reflection of the amount as expenditure, without proof of actual recovery from buyers, is not conclusive of unjust enrichment. It relied on the view that accounting entries and the doctrine of unjust enrichment operate on different planes, and that a Chartered Accountant's certificate, read with the governing customs circular, could support non-passing of the duty burden. The statutory test under the refund provisions required examination of whether the duty incidence was actually passed on, not rejection merely because the amount was not shown as receivable.

Conclusion: The denial of refund on unjust enrichment grounds was unsustainable; the claimant succeeded on this issue.

Final Conclusion: The appeal was allowed, the appellate order was set aside, and refund of the anti-dumping duty with applicable interest was directed to be made to the importer.

Ratio Decidendi: Where provisional anti-dumping duty is statutorily required to be refunded after withdrawal of the levy, refund cannot be denied solely on the basis of accounting entries; unjust enrichment must be proved by showing actual passing on of the duty burden, and mere treatment of the amount as expenditure in the books is not conclusive.

---