The High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Civil Appellate Jurisdiction, quashed orders rejecting refund of anti-dumping duty payments passed without a hearing and remanded the matter for a fresh hearing.
Quashing of orders dated 11th June, 2007 and 4th July, 2007; remand for fresh hearing with opportunity of audience.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.5979 OF 2007
Puneet Resins Ltd. ..Petitioner.
V/s.
The Union of India & Ors. ..Respondents.
Mr.Jitu Motwani i/b. PDS Legal for petitioner.
Mr.P.S. Jetly with A.S.Rao for respondents.
CORAM : F.I.REBELLO AND
J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ.
DATED : 22ND AUGUST, 2007.
P.C. :-
Rule. Heard forthwith.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that
pursuant to the order of the Tribunal,the Government of
India by Notification dated 31st January, 2007 has
raised the anti dumping duty at the rate of US dollars
38.73 per MT. It is further case of the petitioner
that they had filed 6 bills of entry for 6 consignments
between 6/10/2006 and 11/10/2006 and had made payments
of the anti dumping duty as demanded under protest.
Subsequent to the notification of 31st January, 2007
they had made applications for refund by communication
dated 9th May, 2007. Two refund application claims,
have been disposed of by orders dated 11th June, 2007
- = : 2 : = -
and 4th July, 2007 on the ground that the period of 6
months has expired. It is submitted that these orders
were passed without giving the petitioner any
opportunity of hearing.
3. Considering that the orders rejecting the
application for refund was in clear violation of law,
the respondents are bound to give a hearing to the
petitioner before the said order came to be passed. In
the light of that the impugned orders dated 11th
June,2007 and 4th July, 2007 are quashed and set aside.
4. The matter is remanded back to the
respondent No.4 for hearing afresh after giving the
petitioner an opportunity and thereafter to pass
appropriate order in accordance with law.
5. Rule made absolute with no order as to
costs.
(F.I.REBELL0, J.)
(J.P.DEVADHAR, J.)
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the orders rejecting refund applications without a hearing were passed in violation of law.
Puneet Resins Ltd.
The Union of India
F.I. Rebello
J.P. Devadhar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court