2017 (11) TMI 1342 - AT - Customs

Non-compliance of Pre-deposit - Section 129E of Customs Act, 1962 - provisional anti dumping duty - enhancement of duty by final notification for ADD - Held that - Admittedly, there is no order on the merits of the case by the first appellate authority. The appeal stands dismissed by him on the question of predeposit itself - We direct the first appellate authority to hear the appeal without insisting on any predeposit - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
1. Dismissal of appeal by Commissioner (Appeals) for non-compliance of predeposit under Section 129E of Customs Act, 1962.
2. Dispute over the applicability of anti-dumping duty during the provisional and final notification periods.
3. Confirmation of duty demand by the original authority based on final anti-dumping duty notification.
4. Admission of appeal by the Tribunal with a waiver of predeposit and subsequent direction to hear the appeal without insisting on predeposit.
5. Reference to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CC Bangalore Vs G.M. Exports - 2015 (324) ELT 209 (SC) and the applicability of Rule 21 of Anti-dumping Rules, 1995.

Analysis:

1. The appeal was filed against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) who dismissed it for non-compliance of predeposit under Section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962. The appellant argued that the predeposit amount of ?32 lakhs ordered by the first appellate authority was more than 50% of the adjudicated duty demand. The Tribunal admitted the appeal with a waiver of predeposit.

2. The dispute revolved around the applicability of anti-dumping duty during the period of provisional and final notifications. The appellant contended that the enhanced reference value in the final notification did not impose any liability on them for the imported items. They had paid anti-dumping duty for only two out of 14 imported consignments during the provisional period due to the reference value differences.

3. Following the issuance of the final anti-dumping duty notification, the Revenue demanded duty for all consignments imported during the provisional period. The original authority confirmed a duty demand of ?63,52,202/-, leading to the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) who dismissed it for failure to predeposit. The Tribunal directed the first appellate authority to reconsider the appeal without insisting on predeposit, citing a previous waiver order.

4. The Tribunal emphasized that the first appellate authority had not issued any order on the merits of the case but had dismissed the appeal solely on the predeposit issue. Referring to a Supreme Court decision and Rule 21 of the Anti-Dumping Rules, 1995, the Tribunal instructed the Commissioner (Appeals) to reexamine all aspects, granting the appellant adequate opportunity before making a fresh decision.

5. Considering the prolonged pendency of the case for almost 10 years, the Tribunal advised the Commissioner (Appeals) to expedite the decision-making process, setting a deadline of not later than 2 months for resolving the issue. The appeal was allowed by way of remand, emphasizing the need for a comprehensive review of the case based on the legal provisions and court decisions cited during the proceedings.