2004 (7) TMI 386 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Modification of Stay Order regarding pre-deposit of duty.
2. Interpretation of Rule 21 of the Customs Tariff (Anti-dumping Duty on Dumped Articles) Rules, 1995 in relation to Section 9A(3) of the Customs Tariff Act.

Analysis:
1. The case involved an application for the modification of a Stay Order that directed the appellant to deposit a specific amount towards duty demanded within a set timeframe. The issue revolved around the anti-dumping duty leviable on normal butanol imported and cleared by the appellant. The department had collected provisional anti-dumping duty, but later, the final anti-dumping duty was determined with retrospective effect. The Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed the differential duty between the provisional and final amounts. The Bench considered the submissions, including the contention that Rule 21 of the Customs Tariff Rules prohibits demanding the difference between provisional and final duty. However, the Bench held that Section 9A(3) of the Customs Tariff Act would prevail over Rule 21, leading to the directive for pre-deposit pending the appeal's outcome.

2. The appellant highlighted a decision by the High Court of Gujarat, which held that under Rule 21 of the Customs Tariff Rules, no pre-deposit should be required. In light of this precedent, the Tribunal modified the Stay Order to waive the pre-deposit of duty during the appeal's pendency. Therefore, the miscellaneous application seeking modification was allowed, and the pre-deposit requirement was waived based on the interpretation of Rule 21 and Section 9A(3) in line with the High Court's decision.

This detailed analysis outlines the issues of modification of the Stay Order and the interpretation of relevant rules and acts in the context of anti-dumping duty, providing a comprehensive understanding of the judgment's key aspects and legal reasoning.