2019 (1) TMI 1512 - HC - Customs

Anti-dumping duty - Expired notification - N/N. 50/2017-Customs (ADD) dated 18.10.2017 - imports made by the petitioner firm from the countries specified in N/N. 34/2012-Customs (ADD) dated 03.07.2012 - import of Soda Ash - revocation of N/N. 34/2012 by the Central Government - Whether the respondents are entitled to collect anti-dumping duty from the petitioner in respect of import of Soda Ash from the countries referred, in the absence of any statutory right conferred on them, especially, when such right conferred through the Notification got expired already on 02.07.2018? Held that - There is no dispute to the fact that the anti-dumping duty was imposed in pursuant to the Notification issued as stated. It is also not in dispute that the right to collect such anti-dumping duty got expired on 02.07.2018. Even otherwise, as it is admitted by the respondents in the counter affidavit that the DGAD has already passed an order on 14.12.2018 holding that the continuation of anti-dumping duty is not warranted and thus, he is not recommending for the extension of the anti-dumping duty on import of subject matter from the subject countries. It is an admitted case of the respondents that as on date, no notification is in force empowering the collection of ADD - On the other hand, it is a matter of fact such power conferred on the authorities through issuance of relevant notification ceased to exist after 02.07.2018. There is no justification on the part of the respondents in seeking for any interim protection for releasing the goods without collecting the anti-dumping duty on the reason that the order passed by DGAD dated 14.12.2018 is an appellable order - the respondents cannot insist upon the petitioner to protect the interest of the Revenue towards the anti-dumping duty in the absence of any statutory right available as on today for levying collecting such duty - petition allowed - decided in favor of petitioner.

Summary

Issues:
- Validity of collecting anti-dumping duty post-expiry of notification
- Entitlement of authorities to collect duty in absence of statutory right
- Protection of revenue interest through bond requirement

Analysis:

Issue 1: Validity of collecting anti-dumping duty post-expiry of notification
The petitioner firm imported Soda Ash subject to anti-dumping duty under various notifications. The original levy expired on 02.07.2018. Despite this, the respondents continued to demand duty post-expiry. The court noted that the Designated Authority recommended revocation of duty, and subsequent notifications extended the levy until 2018. However, the DGAD's final findings on 14.12.2018 concluded that continuing the duty was unwarranted. As no notification empowered duty collection post-2018, the court ruled against the respondents, stating there was no justification for seeking interim protection for duty collection.

Issue 2: Entitlement of authorities to collect duty in absence of statutory right
The respondents argued for protecting revenue interest by requiring the petitioner to furnish a bond due to the appealable nature of the DGAD's order. However, the court emphasized that the authority's power to collect duty ceased with the expiration of the relevant notification on 02.07.2018. As of the DGAD's findings on 14.12.2018, no statutory right existed for collecting anti-dumping duty. Therefore, the court held that the respondents could not demand duty without a legal basis, ruling in favor of the petitioner.

Issue 3: Protection of revenue interest through bond requirement
While the respondents sought to safeguard revenue interest through a bond from the petitioner, the court rejected this argument. Given the absence of a valid statutory right for collecting duty post-2018 and the DGAD's findings against extending the duty, the court found no grounds for demanding a bond. The court concluded that the petitioner was entitled to succeed in the writ petition, allowing it without costs and closing the related miscellaneous petition.