2010 (6) TMI 899 - HC - Customs

Summary

Issues involved:
The issues involved in the judgment are related to duty liability in terms of a High Court order, challenge to preliminary findings by the Director General Safeguard, interim reliefs against the applicants, amendment to section 8C of the Customs Tariff Act, retrospective effect of the impugned notification, execution of bonds by the petitioners, and modification of interim orders.

Duty Liability and Interim Orders:
The Director General Safeguards sought orders directing the petitioners to discharge duty liability as per a High Court order dated 8th May, 2009. The petitioners had challenged preliminary findings related to imports of Aluminum Flat Rolled Products and Aluminum Foil from China. The earlier Bench had granted interim relief allowing the petitioners to import goods covered by the notification under challenge and directed the release of goods without a bank guarantee, subject to future rules. The Director General Safeguards sought directions against the petitioners to make payment of their liability covered under the executed bonds.

Amendment to Customs Tariff Act:
The senior counsel for the applicants highlighted an amendment to section 8C of the Customs Tariff Act by the Finance (No.2) Act, 2009, which came into effect from 19th August, 2009. This amendment made provisions of the Customs Act, 1962 applicable to duties leviable under the Safeguards Act. The counsel argued that the interim orders passed before this amendment needed to be vacated or modified.

Opposition and Retrospective Effect:
The counsel for the petitioners opposed the submissions, claiming that the impugned notification had retrospective effect, contrary to the law. He argued that the interim orders were passed after due consideration and no subsequent event warranted their modification.

Decision and Modification of Interim Orders:
After hearing both parties, the Court noted that the petitioners had executed bonds but had not imported any goods, ensuring revenue protection. Considering the parameters for interim relief, the Court found a prima facie case in favor of the petitioners. The Court modified the interim orders by directing the petitioners to furnish additional security in the form of a bank guarantee for 50% of the bond amount, in addition to the existing bonds. The modified orders would continue during the pendency of the petition, and the civil applications were disposed of with no costs.