ALO Partners Logo

π€πšππ«π’π€πšπš π‹πžπ πšπ₯ π’πžπ«π―π’πœπžπ¬ (𝐀𝐋𝐒)

Tag: #CalcuttaHighCourt

  • Calcutta High Court Clarifies Unjust Enrichment and Refund Rights for Government Undertakings Under Customs Act

    Calcutta High Court Clarifies Unjust Enrichment and Refund Rights for Government Undertakings Under Customs Act

    Aadrikaa Legal Services (ALS) – IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 19.05.2026

    Calcutta High Court Clarifies Unjust Enrichment and Refund Rights for Government Undertakings Under Customs Act

    This Short Article has been prepared & written by Advocate Ravi Shekhar Jha-Delhi High Court, New Delhi. The views expressed are based on his interpretation of the law. He can be reached at his email id intelconsul@gmail.com .  

    The recent judgment by the Calcutta High Court in the case of Dredging Corporation of India Limited (DCI) versus the Commissioner of Customs (Port), Kolkata, addresses crucial issues regarding customs duty assessment, refund claims, and the doctrine of unjust enrichment under the Customs Act, 1962. This article provides a detailed overview of the case, the legal questions involved, and the implications for government undertakings and importers.

    Background of the Case

    Dredging Corporation of India, a Government of India undertaking, entered into a contract with Kolkata Port Trust for dredging operations. To fulfill this contract, DCI imported a cutter suction dredger along with accessories and spares from a Dutch supplier. The customs authorities provisionally assessed the imported goods, raising doubts about the eligibility of spares and accessories for concessional duty rates under the Accessories (Conditions) Rules, 1963 and Notification No. 133/87-Cus.

    Key Events:

    1. Provisional Assessment: Three bills of entry were filed in early 1991, and duty was paid provisionally.
    2. Dispute on Duty Rate: Customs authorities denied the benefit of concessional rates for spares and accessories, leading to higher duty payments.
    3. Appeals and Tribunal Decision: DCI appealed, and the tribunal eventually ruled in their favor, recognizing accessories and spares as indispensable parts of the main vessel.
    4. Refund Claim: DCI filed for a refund of excess duty paid, but the claim was initially rejected on grounds of limitation and alleged unjust enrichment.

    Legal Issues Considered

    The revenue department raised two main questions:

    • Whether the tribunal properly appreciated Section 28D of the Customs Act, 1962 (regarding unjust enrichment).
    • Whether the tribunal was required to verify the application of Section 28D before upholding the refund order.

    The Doctrine of Unjust Enrichment

    Unjust enrichment prevents a claimant from receiving a refund if the burden of duty has been passed on to another party. The authorities repeatedly credited the refund amount to the Consumer Welfare Fund, arguing that DCI had not proven the duty was not passed on.

    Court’s Analysis:

    • The appellate authority found no evidence that DCI had passed on the duty, especially since the imported vessel and its equipment were still in use and not sold.
    • Certificates from DCI’s Chartered Accountant and Director (Operations and Technical) confirmed the goods remained with DCI.
    • The court distinguished this case from others where unjust enrichment was established, noting that DCI’s situation was unique and the refund claim was not time-barred.

    Final Judgment and Implications

    The High Court dismissed the revenue’s appeal, affirming that:

    1. The refund claim was within the limitation period.
    2. The entitlement to refund had attained finality through multiple appellate decisions.
    3. The doctrine of unjust enrichment did not apply, as DCI had not passed on the duty burden.

    Key Takeaways:

    • Government Undertakings: The judgment reinforces that unjust enrichment principles may not apply when goods remain in use and are not sold or transferred.
    • Refund Claims: Importers should maintain clear documentation to prove non-transfer of duty burden.
    • Legal Precedent: The case sets a precedent for similar disputes involving provisional assessments and refund claims under the Customs Act.

    Conclusion

    This judgment provides clarity on the application of unjust enrichment in customs refund cases, especially for government undertakings. It underscores the importance of factual evidence and the need for authorities to avoid prolonged litigation when the legal position is clear. Importers and legal practitioners should take note of the court’s reasoning and ensure robust documentation in customs matters.

    Source: Calcutta High Court

    Disclaimer

    Handy Download:

    “Handy Order for Download”Download

    Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

    Tel: +91-11-4999 2707 I +91-9999005379

    www.aadrikaalaw.com

  • Calcutta High Court Directs Revenue to Approach Supreme Court Under Section 130E of Customs Act

    Calcutta High Court Directs Revenue to Approach Supreme Court Under Section 130E of Customs Act

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 01.04.2026

    Calcutta High Court Directs Revenue to Approach Supreme Court Under Section 130E of Customs Act

    Adv Ravi Shekhar Jha
    Adv Ravi Shekhar Jha

    This Article has been written by Advocate Ravi Shekhar Jha-BALLB & LLM (Constitutional Law) based in New Delhi. The views expressed are based on his interpretation of the law. He can be reached at his email idΒ intelconsul@gmail.com or on his Mobile +91-9999005379.

    On March 19, 2026, the High Court at Calcutta, under its Special Jurisdiction (Customs), delivered a significant judgment in the case of Commissioner of Customs (Port) vs. M/s Akash Exports, Through Its Proprietor. ​ The case, registered as CUSTA/26/2026 and IA NO: GA/1/2026, was heard by a division bench comprising Hon’ble Justice.

    Background of the Case

    The dispute arose from an appeal filed by the Commissioner of Customs (Port) against M/s Akash Exports, alleging substantial errors in law committed by the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT). ​ The appellant raised several critical questions of law under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962, which governs appeals to the High Court. ​ The case revolved around issues of provisional release, smuggling allegations, valuation of imported goods, and penalties under the Customs Act. ​

    Substantial Questions of Law Raised ​

    The appellant, represented by Senior Advocate, presented the following key questions of law for the Court’s consideration:

    1. Misinterpretation of Provisional Release: Whether the Tribunal erred in interpreting provisional release under Section 110A of the Customs Act, 1962, as provisional assessment under Section 18. ​
    2. Disregard of Evidence: Whether the Tribunal committed a substantial error in law by disregarding overwhelming evidence of smuggling and fraud, treating the case as a mere procedural issue. ​
    3. Valuation of Goods: Whether the Tribunal incorrectly rejected the re-determined value of goods by the department and accepted the declared/revised values, violating Rule 9 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007. ​
    4. Penalty Under Section 114AA: Whether the Tribunal erred in setting aside the penalty under Section 114AA by treating it as consequential to the duty demand without appreciating the true scope of the section. ​
    5. Perversity of the Tribunal’s Order: Whether the impugned order passed by the Tribunal was perverse in both facts and law. ​

    Legal Framework

    The Court examined the provisions of Sections 130 and 130E of the Customs Act, 1962, which outline the procedures for appeals to the High Court and Supreme Court, respectively. ​ Section 130 allows appeals to the High Court if the case involves substantial questions of law, while Section 130E provides for appeals to the Supreme Court in cases involving the determination of the rate of duty or the value of goods for assessment purposes.

    Court’s Observations

    After reviewing the case and the legal provisions, the Court concluded that the appeal should be preferred before the Hon’ble Supreme Court under Section 130E of the Customs Act. ​ The bench noted that the case involved substantial questions of law and related to the determination of the value of goods for assessment purposes, which falls under the purview of the Supreme Court. ​

    Judgment

    The High Court dismissed the appeals and connected applications filed by the Commissioner of Customs (Port). ​ The Court also granted leave to the appellant’s advocate to obtain a certified copy of the tribunal’s order and replace it with a photocopy. ​

    Implications of the Judgment

    This judgment underscores the importance of correctly interpreting the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962, particularly Sections 130 and 130E, in determining the appropriate forum for appeals. ​ By directing the matter to the Supreme Court, the High Court has reinforced the principle that cases involving substantial questions of law related to the valuation of goods for assessment purposes must be adjudicated at the highest judicial level. ​

    Conclusion

    The case of Commissioner of Customs (Port) vs. M/s Akash Exports highlights the complexities of customs law and the importance of judicial scrutiny in cases involving allegations of smuggling, fraud, and valuation disputes. ​ The High Court’s decision to dismiss the appeals and direct the matter to the Supreme Court sets a precedent for similar cases in the future, ensuring that substantial questions of law are addressed by the appropriate judicial authority. ​

    Source: Calcutta High Court

    Disclaimer

    Handy Download:

    “Handy Order for Download”Download

    Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

    Tel: +91-11-4999 2707 I +91-9999005379

    www.aadrikaalaw.com

  • Calcutta High Court Quashes Anti-Dumping Duty on Titanium Dioxide Imports

    Calcutta High Court Quashes Anti-Dumping Duty on Titanium Dioxide Imports

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 06.12.2025

    Calcutta High Court Quashes Anti-Dumping Duty on Titanium Dioxide Imports

    This Article has been written by Shri Ravi Shekhar Jha, Advocate based in New Delhi. The views expressed are based on his interpretation of the law. He can be reached at his email id intelconsul@gmail.com or on his Mobile +91-9999005379.​ ​  ​​

    In a significant judgment, the Calcutta High Court recently quashed the anti-dumping duty imposed on Titanium Dioxide (Rutile Sulphate) imports from China. The case, filed by the Indian Paint Association against the Union of India and others, highlighted procedural irregularities and non-disclosure of essential information by the Directorate General of Trade Remedies (DGTR).

    Background of the Case

    The Indian Paint Association, representing a major portion of the domestic paint industry, filed a writ petition challenging the DGTR’s final findings and the subsequent anti-dumping duty imposed by the Central Government. The petitioner argued that Rutile Sulphate was not commercially produced or sold by the domestic industry, and the DGTR failed to provide a non-confidential summary of the confidential information submitted by the domestic industry. ​ This lack of transparency, according to the petitioner, violated the principles of natural justice and the procedural safeguards outlined in the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, and the Anti-Dumping Rules, 1995. ​

    Key Issues Raised

    The case revolved around several critical issues:

    1. Territorial Jurisdiction: The court ruled that the impact of the anti-dumping duty was felt at the petitioner’s registered office in Kolkata, establishing jurisdiction for the Calcutta High Court to hear the case. ​
    2. Premature Challenge: The court clarified that the amended Customs Tariff Act now allows appeals against the determination itself, making the challenge valid and not premature. ​
    3. Alternative Remedy: Although an appellate mechanism exists under Section 9C of the Customs Tariff Act, the court noted that the relevant anti-dumping bench of the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) had not been functional for over a year, justifying the writ petition. ​
    4. Procedural Irregularities: The court found that the DGTR failed to provide essential facts and non-confidential summaries of confidential information, preventing the petitioner from effectively contesting the findings. ​
    5. Violation of Natural Justice: The court held that the DGTR’s actions violated principles of natural justice and procedural safeguards under the Anti-Dumping Rules and the WTO’s Anti-Dumping Agreement. ​

    Court’s Decision

    Justice ruled that the DGTR’s final findings were vitiated due to procedural lapses and non-compliance with the principles of natural justice. Consequently, the anti-dumping duty imposed by the Central Government was also quashed. The court remanded the matter back to the DGTR for reconsideration, directing it to address the petitioner’s concerns and comply with the procedural requirements under Rule 7(2) of the Anti-Dumping Rules. ​

    Implications of the Judgment

    This judgment underscores the importance of transparency and adherence to procedural safeguards in anti-dumping investigations. It also highlights the judiciary’s role in ensuring fairness and accountability in administrative actions. ​ The decision is a significant win for the Indian Paint Association and sets a precedent for future cases involving anti-dumping duties.

    The case serves as a reminder that procedural fairness and compliance with statutory provisions are essential in protecting the rights of stakeholders and maintaining the integrity of trade remedies. As the matter is now remanded back to the DGTR, all eyes will be on the authority to ensure a fair and transparent reconsideration of the case.

    Listen to this on our #YouTube Channel

    Source: Calcutta High Court

    Disclaimer

    Handy Download:

    “Handy Order for Download”Download

    Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

    Tel: +91-11-4999 2707 I +91-9999005379

    www.aadrikaalaw.com