2010 (12) TMI 133 - AT - Customs

Anti dumping duty - earned advocate on behalf of the appellants submitted that in this case demand could not have been raised under Section 28 of Customs Act 1962 - Appellant has been able to make out a prima-facie case in their favour as regards limitation as well as proposed demand - Accordingly the appellant is directed to deposit an amount of Rs.2.5 lakhs within six weeks and report compliance to Commissioner (Appeals) who shall decide all the matters afresh after noting compliance with the order of this Tribunal - Appeals and stay petition get disposed of by way of remand

Summary

Issues Involved:
Whether anti-dumping duty imposed under Customs Notification No.88/07 dated 24.07.07 can be levied on imports made during the period from 03.01.07 to 13.06.07 by the appellants under four bills of entry, and if the demand raised under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962 is valid.

Analysis:
The appeals before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Ahmedabad involved a common issue arising from the same order-in-appeal regarding the imposition of anti-dumping duty on imports made by the appellants. The question at hand was whether the duty imposed under Notification No.88/07 dated 24.07.07 could be applied to imports made between 03.01.07 to 13.06.07. The appellants had faced a provisional anti-dumping duty under Notification No.106/06 from 09.10.06 to 08.04.07, followed by a definite duty from 09.10.06 as per Notification No.88/07.

The appellants were directed to deposit the full duty amount of Rs.14,21,764 as a condition for hearing the appeal. However, they failed to comply, leading to the rejection of the appeals in the impugned order. The appellants contended that the demand could not have been raised under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962, citing a precedent from the Tribunal. They also argued that duty collection over the provisional duty was impermissible under Rule 21 of the Anti-Dumping Duty Rules, 1995. Additionally, they claimed that the demand for two bills of entry was time-barred and highlighted incurring significant losses during a specific financial year.

Upon considering the submissions, the Tribunal found merit in the appellants' arguments regarding limitation and the proposed demand, deeming the case arguable. As the Commissioner (Appeals) had not issued a decision on the merits, a remand was deemed necessary. The appellants were then asked to make a deposit offer, which was accepted by the learned DR. The Tribunal, considering legal arguments, the appellant's financial situation, and the prima facie case, directed the appellants to deposit Rs.2.5 lakhs within six weeks. The Commissioner (Appeals) was instructed to reconsider all matters after verifying compliance with the Tribunal's order, allowing the appellants a fair opportunity to present their case before a final decision. The appeals and stay petition were disposed of through remand, ensuring a thorough review of the case.