2017 (9) TMI 66 - AT - Customs

ADD on PVC resin - provisionally assessed and cleared consignments of the respondent during July to September, 2012 - N/N. 15/2013-Cus - N/N. 70/2010-Cus - Held that - the provisional duty ordered to be continued for six months by the Tribunal is as per the rate applicable on the date preceding the N/N. 70/2010 Cus. - the N/N. 15/2013-Cus is not legally made retrospective and it cannot revive N/N. 70/2010-Cus, which has been set aside - the difference between the provisional duty under AD and provisional assessment for regular Customs duty has not been appreciated by the Revenue while preferring this appeal - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal against order dated 15.05.2015 of Commissioner (Appeals), Jaipur regarding imposition of AD duty on PVC Resin Paste Grade.
2. Dispute over the applicability of AD duty under notification no.15/2013-Cus on provisionally assessed consignments imported between July to September, 2012.
3. Interpretation of Tribunal's direction regarding continuation of provisional AD duty and the effect of subsequent notification no.15/2013-Cus.
4. Legal basis for the Revenue's appeal and the applicability of Rule 21 of the Customs Tariff Rules in finalizing provisional AD duty assessment.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed by the Revenue against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) regarding the imposition of AD duty on PVC Resin Paste Grade consignments imported by the respondent. The Tribunal had previously set aside certain notifications and remanded the matter back to the Designated Authority for a fresh decision. The dispute centered around the applicability of AD duty on these consignments.

2. The Revenue contended that the AD duty under notification no.15/2013-Cus should apply to the provisionally assessed consignments imported between July to September, 2012. However, both the Original Authority and the first Appellate Authority ruled against the Revenue, stating that no duty liability would arise as the declared value fell within the limits, as per the Tribunal's final order.

3. The Revenue argued that the AD duty finalized under notification no.15/2013-Cus should be considered a continuation of the earlier notification no.70/2010-Cus, as it was issued within the validity period of the latter. However, the Tribunal found no legal basis for this argument, emphasizing that the setting aside of the initial notification meant it could not be revived. The Tribunal also highlighted the procedural aspects outlined in Rule 21 of the Customs Tariff Rules regarding the finalization of provisional AD duty assessments.

4. Upon thorough examination and analysis, the Tribunal concluded that the Revenue's appeal lacked merit. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, emphasizing that the legal framework and procedural rules governing the imposition and finalization of AD duty did not support the Revenue's position. The Tribunal's decision was based on a comprehensive understanding of the legal provisions and the specific circumstances of the case.