https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=397938 The court upheld the rejection of the petitioner's refund claim due to non-compliance with the Customs Act requirements, specifically the failure to file within the prescribed time limit and provide evidence of payment "under protest." Despite subsequent compliance with court orders and the Deputy Commissioner's decision on Anti Dumping Duty (ADD) liability, the lack of reasoning in the rejection and failure to consider relevant factors rendered the decision legally questionable. The Deputy Commissioner's Order-in-Original, determining no ADD liability, should have influenced the refund decision, indicating flaws in the rejection process. en-us Mon, 17 Aug 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 06 Feb 2021 17:13:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=397938 The court upheld the rejection of the petitioner's refund claim due to non-compliance with the Customs Act requirements, specifically the failure to file within the prescribed time limit and provide evidence of payment "under protest." Despite subsequent compliance with court orders and the Deputy Commissioner's decision on Anti Dumping Duty (ADD) liability, the lack of reasoning in the rejection and failure to consider relevant factors rendered the decision legally questionable. The Deputy Commissioner's Order-in-Original, determining no ADD liability, should have influenced the refund decision, indicating flaws in the rejection process. Case-Laws Customs Mon, 17 Aug 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=397938