9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Applicability of anti-dumping duty on imported goods. 2. Knowledge and awareness of the imposition of anti-dumping duty by the importer. 3. Determination of the rate of duty as per the date of removal of goods from the warehouse. Analysis: Issue 1: Applicability of anti-dumping duty on imported goods The case involved the imposition of anti-dumping duty on imported goods. The appellants imported goods and filed a warehousing Bill of Entry on 25-8-1995. While the anti-dumping duty was imposed on 14-11-1995, the goods were cleared without payment of the duty on 16-11-1995. The Revenue later issued a show cause notice demanding the duty. The Tribunal noted that the rate of duty applicable on the date of actual removal of goods from the warehouse is crucial. Referring to relevant judgments, the Tribunal emphasized that the duty imposed must be known to the general public for it to take effect. The matter was remanded for an enquiry into when the anti-dumping duty notification was made public, aligning with the Supreme Court's stance on the issue. Issue 2: Knowledge and awareness of the imposition of anti-dumping duty by the importer The appellants argued that neither they nor the Revenue were aware of the anti-dumping duty notification on the date of goods' removal. The appellants claimed they had no knowledge of the duty imposition, which was contested by the Revenue. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of public awareness of duty notifications for their enforcement, requiring factual evidence to determine the awareness of the importer and the Revenue regarding the duty imposition. Issue 3: Determination of the rate of duty as per the date of removal of goods from the warehouse The Tribunal rejected the contention that the rate of duty should be as on the date goods were ordered to be cleared, emphasizing that the rate on the actual removal date applies. Citing relevant case law, the Tribunal directed a remand to ascertain when the anti-dumping duty notification was made public. The Tribunal highlighted the need for factual evidence in determining the duty's enforceability based on public awareness, aligning with the Apex Court's precedent. In conclusion, the appeal was allowed by remand for further adjudication based on the directions provided, emphasizing the significance of public notification of duty impositions for their legal enforceability.
|
