Anti-dumping duty refund upheld where rescinding notification operated prospectively and did not bar pre-rescission claims.

Refund of anti-dumping duty paid before rescission was sustained because the final findings had already concluded that continued duty on the goods was not justified and the duty was liable to be withdrawn. The rescinding notification operated prospectively and expressly preserved acts done before rescission, so it did not bar refund of duty collected prior to 29.02.2012. On that basis, the Tribunal's acceptance of the refund claim was not interfered with, and the matter was decided in favour of the assessee.

---

---

Issues: Whether the assessee was entitled to refund of anti-dumping duty after rescission of the notification imposing such duty, and whether the Tribunal was correct in treating the rescinding notification as not barring refund for duty paid before rescission.

Analysis: The refund claim arose from anti-dumping duty paid before the rescission notification dated 29.02.2012. The record showed that the Designated Authority's final findings concluded that continued imposition of anti-dumping duty on phenol from the concerned territories was not justified and that the duty was liable to be withdrawn. The rescinding notification expressly stated that it would operate prospectively and would not disturb things done or omitted to be done before rescission. In these circumstances, the Court found no reason to interfere with the Tribunal's acceptance of the refund claim based on the final findings and the legal effect of rescission.

Conclusion: The issue was answered against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee; the refund was sustained.

---