Mandatory refund of withdrawn anti-dumping duty cannot be refused solely on accounting entries or mechanical unjust enrichment grounds.

Rule 21(3) of the Anti-Dumping Duty Rules, 1995 was treated as mandating refund of provisional anti-dumping duty once the levy was withdrawn, and the refund was not to be denied by importing a redundant regime beyond that statutory command. The tribunal also noted that unjust enrichment under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 could not be applied mechanically merely because the duty was shown as expenditure in the accounts. A Chartered Accountant's certificate and surrounding material were considered sufficient to show that accounting treatment alone did not conclusively prove passing on of the duty incidence, so the refund and applicable interest were allowed.

---

---

Issues: Whether refund of provisional anti-dumping duty, once withdrawn, was governed by the mandatory refund mechanism under Rule 21(3) of the Anti-Dumping Duty Rules, 1995, and whether the claim could nevertheless be denied on the ground of unjust enrichment under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Analysis: The Tribunal held that Rule 21(3) mandated refund of the provisional anti-dumping duty once the levy was withdrawn, and the importer was not to be driven into a redundant refund regime beyond the statutory command. It further held that rejection of the claim solely because the duty amount was reflected as expenditure in the books of account was unsustainable. On the facts, the Chartered Accountant's certificate and the surrounding material were sufficient to show that mere accounting treatment did not conclusively establish passing on of the duty incidence, and the doctrine of unjust enrichment could not be mechanically applied to defeat a statutory refund of anti-dumping duty.

Conclusion: The refund could not be denied on the ground of unjust enrichment, and the appellant was entitled to refund of the anti-dumping duty with applicable interest.

---