Per Justice K.Sreedharan :

Issues raised in all these appeals are same. So, we consider it advantageous to dispose of all these appeals by a common order.

2. Short facts necessary for the disposal of these appeals are as follows:

M/s. Caprihans India Ltd., imported PVC Resin Suspension from time to time in 35 consignments from the Republic of Korea. The product, namely, PVC Resin -was subjected to anti dumping duty. Pursuantto preliminary findings on the question of anti dumping duty arrived at by the Designated Authority, Government of India issued Notification No. 3 dated2.2.93 levying anti dumping duty at the rate of Rs. 1700 PMT. Pending determination of normal value and the margin of dumping the said duty of Rs. 1700 PMT was provisionally imposed and collected. There after the Designated Authority came to its final finding on the anti dumping duty imposable on the subject goods, namely, PVC Resin. Based on the final finding arrived at by the Designated Authority, anti dumping duty was fixed at a lesser rate of Rs. 1253 PMT by Notification No. 4/94 dated 18.1.94. As there was reduction in the anti dumping duty, excess amount of duty paid in terms of preliminary notification was claimed back. The claim, though filed within six months of the final notification, was rejected on the ground that refund claims were filed beyond six months of the date of payment of duty. This view taken by the adjudicating authority in its Orders-in-Original dated 14.1.94 were challenged before the Collector of Customs (Appeals) Bombay. Appellate Authority rejected the appeals holding that the duty was not paid in terms of any provisional assessment as understood within the meaning of Section 18 of the Customs Act and so the part is not entitled to claim refund as the applications are time barred in terms of Section 27 of the Act. Aggrieved by this conclusion arrived at by the appellate forum the party has preferred appeal Nos. C/423/94-A and C/442-476/ 94-A.

3. Three consignments of PVC Resin were imported by the party from Korea. Those consignments were cleared on payment of provisional anti dumping duty imposed by notification 3/93 dated 2.2.93. Duty so paid was at the rate of Rs. 1700 PMT. When the anti dumping duty of the subject goods imported from South Korea was reduced to Rs. 1253 PMT, the part moved application for refund of the excess amount. Those applications were rejected by the adjudicating authority on the ground that they were barred by limitation prescribed under section 27(1) of the Act. Aggrieved by the said order party preferred appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals). That authority disposed of the appeals by order dated 27.3.96. Appellate Commissioner set aside the order of the adjudicating authority holding that the duty imposed was provisional and consequently the claim for refund made by them is not barred by limitation. In this view of the matter he remanded the entire issue to the lower authority for considering the issue of unjust enrichment. This decision rendered by the Commissioner is under challenge at the instance of the Revenue in appeal Nos. C/371-373/96-A.

4. When appeals filed by the Revenue came up before Learned Member of West Zonal Bench at Mumbai, he took the view that the appeals have to go to the special forum specified in section 9C(5) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 and other regular benches of the Tribunal have no jurisdiction. Pursuant to this order of the Learned Member all the appeals have been transferred to the Delhi Bench for being heard by a bench constituted under section 9C(5) of the Customs Tariff (Amendment) Act. This is how the matters have come before us.

5. Anti Dumping Duty on PVC Resin imported from South Korea was imposed pursuant to investigation taken up by the Designated Authority as contemplated by Section 9A of the Customs Tariff Act. Section 9A(1) of the Act enjoins the Government to impose an anti dumping duty not exceeding the margin of dumping in relation to any article, by