<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>Refund of withdrawn provisional anti-dumping duty cannot be denied on unjust enrichment grounds under the Anti-Dumping Rules.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=98691</link>
    <description>Provisional anti-dumping duty collected on import of copper clad laminates was held refundable once the provisional levy was withdrawn without confirmation. The Tribunal noted that Rule 21 of the Anti-Dumping Rules required refund of any collection made between imposition and withdrawal, and that a separate refund application was not a basis to defeat the claim. It further held that the doctrine of unjust enrichment could not be imported to deny refund under this rule, and that treatment of the amount as expenditure in the books or the absence of a receivable entry did not by itself establish unjust enrichment. The appellate order was set aside and refund with applicable interest was directed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Sat, 11 Apr 2026 08:53:11 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 11 Apr 2026 08:53:12 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=896269" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Refund of withdrawn provisional anti-dumping duty cannot be denied on unjust enrichment grounds under the Anti-Dumping Rules.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=98691</link>
      <description>Provisional anti-dumping duty collected on import of copper clad laminates was held refundable once the provisional levy was withdrawn without confirmation. The Tribunal noted that Rule 21 of the Anti-Dumping Rules required refund of any collection made between imposition and withdrawal, and that a separate refund application was not a basis to defeat the claim. It further held that the doctrine of unjust enrichment could not be imported to deny refund under this rule, and that treatment of the amount as expenditure in the books or the absence of a receivable entry did not by itself establish unjust enrichment. The appellate order was set aside and refund with applicable interest was directed.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Sat, 11 Apr 2026 08:53:11 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=98691</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>