Just a moment...

Top
Help
AI Drafter

Generate professional replies to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.

Step 1 – Issue Identification & Review

The AI analyses your query, notice, order, or uploaded documents and identifies the key issues involved.

• Review the issues identified by the AI
• Add, edit, remove, or refine issues as required


Step 2 – Draft Generation

Once you approve the issues, the AI performs issue-wise legal research and prepares a structured draft response.

• Relevant statutory provisions
• Judicial precedents and Supreme Court, High Court and other citations
• Issue-wise legal analysis
• Practical arguments and supporting content
• Professionally structured draft ready for further review.

Try Now
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / RSS

Refund of withdrawn provisional anti-dumping duty cannot be denied on unjust enrichment grounds under the Anti-Dumping Rules.

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....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anti-dumping duty collected on import of copper clad laminates was held refundable once the provisional levy was withdrawn without confirmation.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.....