2006 (9) TMI 179 - SC - Customs

Whether the said notification dated 22-5-2002 was retrospective in operation to direct payment of anti-dumping duty on the said imported goods by the appellant? Held that - The notification dated 22-5-2002, on its face value, is prospective in operation and not retrospective. It, in no uncertain terms, states that Central Government thereby may impose duty only, inter alia, on lead acid batteries originated from the countries specified therein and imported into India. The proviso appended to the notification provides for a clue in the sense that by reason thereof no duty was to be imposed on industrial lead acid batteries manufactured by the manufacturers named therein. The anti-dumping duty imposed thereby was to remain effective only for a limited period, i.e., upto 21st November, 2002. Thus the impugned judgment cannot be sustained, which is accordingly set aside. The appeal is allowed.

Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of anti-dumping duty based on the date of importation.
2. Interpretation of Section 9A of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975.
3. Retrospective vs. prospective application of the notification dated 22-5-2002.
4. Completion of import and the taxable event.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Applicability of Anti-Dumping Duty Based on the Date of Importation:
The appellant imported sealed maintenance-free lead acid batteries on 16-4-2002, and the Bill of Entry was filed on 22-5-2002. The Central Government issued a notification imposing anti-dumping duty on 22-5-2002. The appellant contended that the anti-dumping duty could not be applied retrospectively to goods imported before the notification date. The Tribunal and the respondent argued that importation is complete when goods cross the customs barrier, not when they land in India, thus making the anti-dumping duty applicable.

2. Interpretation of Section 9A of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975:
Section 9A allows the Central Government to impose anti-dumping duty on goods imported at less than their normal value. The Tribunal held that anti-dumping duty is imposable upon importation and completion of crossing the customs barrier. The appellant argued that Section 9A is an enabling provision and should not be invoked retrospectively. The court clarified that Section 9A envisages duty imposition based on the Central Government's opinion on the normal value of goods.

3. Retrospective vs. Prospective Application of the Notification Dated 22-5-2002:
The appellant argued that the notification dated 22-5-2002 is not retrospective and cannot apply to goods imported on 16-4-2002. The court agreed, stating that the notification is prospective and applies only to goods imported after its issuance. The court emphasized that anti-dumping duty cannot be imposed retrospectively unless explicitly stated by the statute.

4. Completion of Import and the Taxable Event:
The court analyzed the completion of import and the taxable event, stating that import is complete when goods enter Indian territory. The court distinguished between the Customs Act and the Customs Tariff Act, noting that the former's provisions apply only for customs duty computation. The court concluded that the taxable event for anti-dumping duty is the importation of goods into India, not when they cross the customs barrier.

Conclusion:
The court held that the notification dated 22-5-2002 is prospective and cannot be applied to goods imported before its issuance. The anti-dumping duty is applicable only upon importation into India, not when goods cross the customs barrier. The court set aside the impugned judgment and allowed the appeal, emphasizing the principle of strict interpretation of taxing provisions and favoring the taxpayer in cases of ambiguity.

← Previous Next →