9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Appeal against rejection of appeal by Commissioner (Appeals) due to non-compliance with Section 129E of the Customs Act. Detailed Analysis: The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal was against the rejection of the assessee's appeal by the Commissioner (Appeals) on the grounds of non-compliance with Section 129E of the Customs Act. The original authority had imposed anti-dumping duty on "Compact Fluorescent Lamps" imported by the assessee from Hong Kong. The appeal was made on the basis that at the time of importation, there was no provisional anti-dumping duty on the goods. The assessee contended that the provisional anti-dumping duty imposed in 2001 had expired after 6 months, making the finalization of the duty in 2002 irrelevant. The Tribunal noted that Rule 20 of the Customs Tariff Rules allowed for the finalization of anti-dumping duty without any time restriction, and the finalization would take effect from the date of the provisional duty notification. The Tribunal found the assessee's legal contention unsustainable and did not find any other valid grounds against the duty demand. The Tribunal also addressed the issue of the assessee's failure to deposit the duty amount as directed by the Commissioner (Appeals). The Tribunal allowed a period of 6 weeks for the appellants to make the deposit of the entire anti-dumping duty amount. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and directed the Commissioner (Appeals) to dispose of the appeal on merits in accordance with the law and principles of natural justice, subject to the pre-deposit of the entire duty amount by the appellants within the stipulated period. In conclusion, the appeal was allowed by way of remand, giving the appellants an opportunity to comply with the pre-deposit requirement and have their appeal considered on its merits by the Commissioner (Appeals) in accordance with the law and principles of natural justice.
|
