Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + HC Customs - 2015 (1) TMI HC This

  • Login
  • Cases Cited
  • Referred In
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2015 (1) TMI 121 - HC - Customs


Issues Involved:
1. Whether an extension of time could be granted under the first proviso to Rule 17(1) of the Customs Tariff (Identification, Assessment and Collection of Anti Dumping Duty on Dumped Articles and for Determination of Injury) Rules, 1995, after the expiry of the initial period of one year.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Whether an extension of time could be granted under the first proviso to Rule 17(1) of the Customs Tariff (Identification, Assessment and Collection of Anti Dumping Duty on Dumped Articles and for Determination of Injury) Rules, 1995, after the expiry of the initial period of one year:

The petitioner challenged the extension of time granted for completing an anti-dumping investigation initiated by the Designated Authority under the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. The main contention was whether such an extension could be granted after the expiry of the initial one-year period stipulated under Rule 17(1).

The court noted that the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, specifically Section 9-A, empowers the Central Government to impose anti-dumping duty. The requirement to hold an inquiry before imposing such duty is detailed in various sub-sections of Section 9-A. The Act itself does not prescribe any time limit for the initiation or conclusion of such inquiries, except for the sunset review provisions under Sub-section (5).

The court emphasized that the time limit of one year prescribed under Rule 17(1) is found in the subordinate legislation, not the Parent Act. The primary legislation does not confer any right upon the importer or exporter that would be affected by the delay in completing the investigation. Therefore, the extension of time granted post facto does not infringe upon any vested rights of the petitioner.

The court referenced several precedents to support its reasoning. It distinguished the current case from others like Tarsem Kumar vs. Collector, Central Excise, and National Industrial Corporation Limited v. Registrar of Companies, where rights accrued to parties upon the expiry of a stipulated period. In the present case, no such rights were created in favor of the petitioner upon the expiry of the initial period.

The court further elaborated that generally, time limits prescribed in subordinate legislation are considered directory unless the statute explicitly states the consequences of non-compliance. It cited the Supreme Court's decisions in Raza Buland Sugar Co. Ltd v. The Municipal Board and Commissioner of Income Tax v. Ajanta Electricals to underline that the directory nature of procedural time limits does not invalidate actions taken beyond such periods unless specific consequences are prescribed.

The court concluded that the extension granted under the first proviso to Rule 17(1) after the expiry of the initial period was valid. The petitioner's contention was rejected, and the writ petition was dismissed.

Conclusion:

The court held that the extension of time granted under the first proviso to Rule 17(1) of the Customs Tariff Rules, 1995, after the expiry of the initial period, was valid. The petitioner's challenge was dismissed, affirming that no right was vested in the importer that could be infringed by the post facto extension. The court emphasized the directory nature of procedural time limits in subordinate legislation, which do not invalidate actions taken beyond such periods unless explicitly stated otherwise.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates