2008 (11) TMI 98 - AT - Customs

Phenol imported was cleared u/not. 73/2001-Cus., dated 28-6-2001, which levy no safeguard duty - safeguard duty was imposed by Notification No. 38/2002 which was issued on 12-2-2002 and was published in the Official Gazette only on 12-4-2002 - Notification mentioning that the amendment will be valid for cases except as respect of things done or committed to be done before such amendments - safeguard duty cannot be levied and confirmed in respect of imports prior to 12-4-2002

Summary

Issues: Application of safeguard duty on imported Phenol prior to the publication date of the amending Notification.

In this judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Ahmedabad, the Revenue appealed against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) regarding the imposition of safeguard duty on imported Phenol. The appellant had imported Phenol and cleared it under Notification No. 73/2001-Cus., which did not levy safeguard duty. Subsequently, safeguard duty 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 prior to the publication date of the amending Notification, relying on the principle that a fresh levy is applicable from the date of the Notification. The Commissioner emphasized the provision in the Notification stating that the amendment would not apply to actions done before its publication. As the import and clearance occurred before 12-4-2002, the Commissioner concluded that the amendment imposing safeguard duty was not applicable.

The Tribunal concurred with the Commissioner's interpretation, stating that as a general rule, a new levy is effective from the date of the Notification. However, the specific provision in the amending Notification clarified that it would not apply to actions taken before its publication. Therefore, the Tribunal held that safeguard duty could not be imposed or confirmed on imports made before 12-4-2002. Consequently, the Tribunal found no merit in the Revenue's appeal and rejected it. The judgment emphasizes the importance of considering the effective date of amendments and the impact on actions taken before such changes are implemented.