2014 (1) TMI 584 - AT - Customs

Import of Non-radial Bias Tyres, Tubes and Flaps - Imposition of anti-dumping duty - Interest under Section 28AB - Notification No. 106/2006-Cus., dated 9-10-2006 - Held that - if the anti-dumping duty imposed by the Central Government on the basis of final findings is higher than the provisional duty already imposed and collected, the differential duty shall not be collected from the importer. Final price is higher than the provisional price and the differential duty shall not be collected from the importer - Stay granted.

Summary

Issues:
1. Anti-dumping duty imposition and compliance with Customs Act, 1962.
2. Interpretation of Rule 20 and Rule 21 of Customs Tariff (Identification, Assessment and Collection of Anti-Dumping Duty on Dumped Articles and for Determination of Injury) Rules, 1995.
3. Application for reconsideration of stay order and compliance with appellate procedures.

Analysis:
1. The case involved the imposition of anti-dumping duty on imported Non-radial Bias Tyres, Tubes, and Flaps by the applicants. The adjudicating authority confirmed the duty under Notification No. 88/2007, dated 24-7-2007, and demanded interest under Section 28AB of the Customs Act, 1962. The applicants appealed before the Commissioner (Appeals) and filed a stay application, which was partially granted by directing a deposit. The subsequent appeal dismissal was based on non-compliance with the stay order.

2. The crux of the matter revolved around the interpretation of Rule 20 and Rule 21 of the Customs Tariff Rules. The counsel argued that the demand was unsustainable under Rule 21, emphasizing that the final price exceeded the provisional price, thus no additional duty should be collected. The AR countered by stating that Rule 20 allows for the levy of duty from the date of provisional duty imposition. However, the Tribunal found merit in the counsel's argument, citing Rule 21's provision against collecting differential duty when the final duty exceeds the provisional amount.

3. The Tribunal examined Rule 21 in detail, highlighting its provisions for refund or non-collection of differential duty based on final findings compared to provisional duty. Noting that the final duty was higher than the provisional duty in this case, the Tribunal granted a waiver of pre-deposit for the differential demand of anti-dumping duty and interest, staying its recovery during the appeal's pendency. This decision was made to align with the rule's stipulations and ensure fairness in duty imposition and collection procedures.

This comprehensive analysis of the judgment delves into the legal intricacies surrounding anti-dumping duty imposition, rule interpretation, and procedural compliance, providing a detailed overview of the Tribunal's decision-making process and considerations.