9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (8) TMI 339 - HC - CustomsLevy and collection of Anti-Dumping Duty - Extra Clear Float Glass - benefit of N/N. 4/2009-Cus. dated 6.1.2009 as amended from time to time - prohibition on respondent Nos.1 and 2, their servants and agents from clearing any consignments of Extra Clear Float Glass from any Customs stations without levying and recovering Anti-Dumping Duty thereon under Notification No.4/2009-Customs dated 06.01.2009 - HELD THAT - As regards the interpretation of the exigibility of the product in question for the purpose of levying Anti-Dumping Duty, we are afraid we can go into it in the present proceedings. We are also of the view that the Tribunal will also not have the jurisdiction to go into such question of interpretation in respect of the exigibility of the product. Since the submissions has been coming forth that the order of the Tribunal holding the product Extra Clear Float Glass to be not liable to be dumping duty as an impact and its own repercussions on the economics of the units of the industry, it is deemed proper to solicit a response on an affidavit from the Department exercising our powers under Article 226 of the Constitution asking the Department to make its stand clear on the said aspect - To be listed on 05.08.2022.
Issues:
1. Challenge to the order of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 05.07.2019. 2. Interpretation of the exigibility of the product Extra Clear Float Glass for levying Anti-Dumping Duty. 3. Impact of the Tribunal's decision on the economics of the industry units. 4. Examination of the recent Notification MTR Case No.1 of 2020 and its implications on the Tribunal's decision. Analysis: Issue 1: The petitioner, a company registered under the Companies Act, challenged the order passed by the Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No. 399-400/2011. The petitioner sought a writ of certiorari to set aside the said order. The Tribunal had decided that the Extra Clear Float Glass imported by an assessee company was not liable to Anti-Dumping Duty, contrary to the levy on Clear Float Glass. The petitioner, representing the industry, contended that the Tribunal's decision would adversely affect the industry units' economics. Issue 2: The Tribunal's decision on the exigibility of Extra Clear Float Glass for Anti-Dumping Duty was questioned. The Court expressed inability to delve into this interpretation in the present proceedings. However, considering the potential impact on industry units, the Court decided to seek a response from the Department through an affidavit under Article 226 of the Constitution to clarify its stand on the matter. Issue 3: The petitioner abandoned prayers related to the levy of Anti-Dumping Duty on Extra Clear Float Glass but persisted with challenging the Tribunal's order. The Tribunal's decision was seen as having significant repercussions on the industry's economic aspects, prompting the Court to solicit a response from the Department to address these concerns. Issue 4: The Court noted the issuance of Notification MTR Case No.1 of 2020, which recommended that Extra Clear Float Glass should not be excluded from the product scope under consideration for Anti-Dumping Duty. The petitioner relied on this notification to argue that the Tribunal's decision was erroneous. The Court acknowledged the potential implications of this notification on the Tribunal's decision and decided to examine the matter further. The case is scheduled for further proceedings on 05.08.2022, awaiting the Department's affidavit to clarify its stance on the issue and the course of action it intends to pursue based on the facts of the case.
|
