2006 (7) TMI 420 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal against OIA No. 153/2003-Cus., dated 17-11-2003.
2. Imposition of definitive anti-dumping duty on imported goods.
3. Recovery of duty not levied based on retrospective levy of anti-dumping duty.
4. Interpretation of statutory provisions and judicial decisions regarding retrospective levy of duty.
5. Validity of Notification No. 138/2002 dated 10-12-2002.
6. Rule 13 of the Customs Tariff (Anti-dumping Duty on Dumped Articles) Rules, 1995.

Analysis:
1. The case involved an appeal against OIA No. 153/2003-Cus., dated 17-11-2003, where the respondents imported CFL lamps, and duty was cleared at a specific rate. Subsequently, definitive anti-dumping duty was imposed on imports of CFL lamps from specific countries. The Revenue sought recovery of duty not levied based on the retrospective levy of anti-dumping duty.

2. The Revenue contended that the anti-dumping duty was chargeable on the imported goods as per Notification No. 138/2002 dated 10-12-2002, effective from 21-12-2001. The Revenue relied on statutory provisions allowing retrospective levy of duty and a Supreme Court judgment validating such provisions to support their claim for duty recovery.

3. The Respondents argued that the provisional anti-dumping duty had lapsed as per Rule 13 of the Customs Tariff (Anti-dumping Duty on Dumped Articles) Rules, 1995, making the retrospective application invalid. The Commissioner (Appeals) agreed, stating that chargeability of duty is created by the Notification alone, and no duty was chargeable at the time of import.

4. The Tribunal reviewed the case records and found that no duty was chargeable at the time of import due to the lapse of the provisional anti-dumping duty. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision, emphasizing that chargeability cannot be created with retrospective effect. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, affirming the impugned Order-in-Appeal.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal's decision highlights the importance of the Notification in creating chargeability of duty, emphasizing that retrospective application cannot be used to levy duty when the Notification itself had lapsed. The case underscores the significance of statutory provisions and judicial interpretations in determining the validity of duty recovery claims based on retrospective levy.