9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Imposition of Anti-dumping duty during the interregnum period between provisional and definitive duty. Analysis: The appeal challenged the imposition of Anti-dumping duty on vitrified/porcelain tiles imported during the period from 2-11-2002 to 30-4-2003. Initially, provisional Anti-dumping duty was levied, followed by definitive duty. The appellant contested the duty imposed during the interregnum period when no duty was levied on the imports. The appellant relied on a Co-ordinate Bench judgment that provisional assessment cannot lead to subsequent imposition of Anti-dumping duty. The appellant's advocate argued that a previous Tribunal judgment favored their position, stating that Anti-dumping duty during the interregnum period is not applicable. However, the Respondent's representative cited other Tribunal decisions, including Nitco Tiles Ltd. and Bansilal Leisure Parks Ltd., which supported the imposition of duty during the interregnum period. Upon review, the Tribunal considered conflicting decisions on the issue. The Tribunal noted the judgment in the case of Nitco Tiles Ltd., which supported the appellant's position, and the Division Bench decision in Bansilal Leisure Parks Ltd., favoring the imposition of duty. The Tribunal acknowledged the divergence in views and directed the matter to be referred to a Larger Bench to resolve the conflict regarding the imposition of Anti-dumping duty during the interregnum period. In conclusion, the Tribunal found conflicting decisions on the imposition of Anti-dumping duty during the interregnum period and decided to refer the matter to a Larger Bench for clarification on whether duty can be levied during that period.
|
