9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Interpretation of Notification No. 38/2002 dated 12-4-2002 regarding safeguard duty applicability on imported Phenol prior to the publication date in the Official Gazette. The judgment dealt with the interpretation of Notification No. 38/2002 dated 12-4-2002 concerning the imposition of safeguard duty on imported Phenol. The appellant imported Phenol in December 1991, which was cleared in February 2002 under Notification No. 73/2001-Cus. dated 28-6-2001, exempting safeguard duty. Subsequently, safeguard duty on imports from South Africa was imposed by Notification No. 38/2002 dated 12-4-2002. The Commissioner (Appeals) held that the safeguard duty could not be imposed on imports made before 12-4-2002, as the amendment was published in the Official Gazette only on that date. The Commissioner relied on the last paragraph of the Notification, which stated that the amendment would not apply to actions done before its publication. The Tribunal agreed with the Commissioner's interpretation, stating that any fresh levy is effective from the date of the Notification unless explicitly mentioned otherwise. The Notification itself clarified that the amendment would not apply to actions done before its publication, affirming that safeguard duty could not be imposed on imports made before 12-4-2002. Consequently, the Tribunal found no merit in the Revenue's appeal and rejected it. In conclusion, the judgment clarified the application of safeguard duty under Notification No. 38/2002 dated 12-4-2002 on imported Phenol. It emphasized that amendments through notifications are effective from the date of issuance unless specified otherwise. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision that the safeguard duty could not be imposed on imports made before the publication of the amendment in the Official Gazette. This case highlights the importance of clear and unambiguous language in legal notifications to determine the applicability of duties and levies on imported goods.
|
