9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (9) TMI 731 - AT - CustomsLevy of Anti-Dumping Duty - imports made during the period between the expiry of the provisional Anti-dumping duty and the imposition of the final Anti-Dumping duty - N/N. 105/2006 dated 6.10.2006 - HELD THAT - The Final Notification No.78/2007-Cus. dated 29.06.2007 as reproduced above stated that the Anti-dumping duty imposed under this Notification shall be levied with effect from the date of imposition of the provisional Anti-dumping duty and shall be paid in Indian currency, therefore, based on these two Notifications, the Commissioner (A) was right in imposing and demanding Antidumping duty from the appellant during the intervening period of provisional Anti-dumping Notification and final Anti-dumping Notification. The Hon ble Supreme Court vide its order dated 23.09.2015 in the case of Commissioner of Customs, Bangalore vs. G.M. Exports 2015 (9) TMI 1162 - SUPREME COURT after elaborating Section 9A(6) of the Customs Tariff Act, the Customs Tariff (Identification, Assessment and Clearance of Anti- Dumping Duty on Dumped Articles and for Determination of Injury) Rules, 1995 held that anti-dumping duty during the interregnum between the expiry of a provisional duty notification and the imposition of a final anti-dumping duty not to be levied. The impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed.
Issues:
The legal judgment involves the issue of Anti-Dumping duty imposed during the period between provisional and final duty notifications. Issue 1: Anti-Dumping Duty Imposition The appellant imported goods liable for Anti-Dumping duty as per Customs Notification No.105/2006. The Commissioner upheld this order based on relevant notifications. The appellant argued settlement based on a Supreme Court decision. The dispute was whether Anti-Dumping duty imposed during the interim period is legal. The final Anti-Dumping duty notification specified the duty's effective date and currency. The Commissioner relied on a High Court order, but the Supreme Court held that such duty during the interim period should not be levied, setting aside previous orders. Conclusion: The legal judgment focused on the legality of imposing Anti-Dumping duty during the period between provisional and final duty notifications. The Supreme Court's decision clarified that such duty should not be levied during this interim period, leading to the setting aside of the Commissioner's order.
|
