Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
ABDUL QUDDHOSE
Virbac Animal Health India Pvt., Ltd., rep. by its company Secretary and GM-Legal, Jayesh Udeshi – Appellant
Versus
Union of India, Rep. by its Secretary (Revenue) Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. impact of finance bill on duty assessment. (Para 1 , 3 , 18) |
| 2. refund eligibility based on duty payment conditions. (Para 2 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 20) |
| 3. protest payments vs voluntary payments. (Para 8 , 9 , 17 , 27 , 28) |
| 4. arguments against customs duty refund. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 5. legal estoppel and challenging prior agreements. (Para 14 , 19 , 21 , 22) |
ORDER :
This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned order dated 04.07.2022 passed by the second respondent rejecting the petitioner’s request for refund of a sum of Rs.3,01,01,534/- paid by them towards differential customs duty during DRI (Directorate of Revenue Intelligence) investigation conducted pursuant to the reopening of the case by the Customs Department on the ground that the petitioner had misdeclared the imported goods in the Bills of Entry submitted by them.
3. According to the petitioner, based on the advise of DRI, it had deposited a sum of Rs.3,16,91,824/- with the Customs Department, being the differential customs duty payable by them. The petitioner claims that eventhough on the advise of DRI they had deposited a sum of Rs.3,16,91,824/- with the Customs Department, they were under the b
The court determined that the payment of customs duty by the petitioner was voluntary, not under protest, thereby denying the refund claim due to failure to prove unjust enrichment.
Since the provisions of section 11B of the Act are not applicable to the claim of refund made by the petitioner, the limitation prescribed under the said provision would also not be applicable and th....
Importers are entitled to a refund of customs duty paid for goods not received, irrespective of inter-departmental disputes, as established under Sections 13, 23, and 27A of the Customs Act.
The court ruled that entitlement to interest on refund under the Customs Act requires proper application in statutory form, with interest only applicable post-crystalization of the refund amount.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
