Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + HC Customs - 2024 (5) TMI HC This

  • Login
  • Cases Cited
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2024 (5) TMI 288 - HC - Customs


Issues Involved:
1. Validity of Notification No. 69/2000-Customs dated 19th May 2000 imposing anti-dumping duty.
2. Authority of the Central Government to grant exemptions under Section 25(1) of the Customs Act, 1962.
3. Discrimination in the imposition of anti-dumping duty.
4. Liability of interest on anti-dumping duty.

Summary:

1. Validity of Notification No. 69/2000-Customs dated 19th May 2000:
The petitioner challenged the Notification No. 69/2000-Customs, which imposed an anti-dumping duty on Metcoke imported from China. The Designated Authority had previously determined that Metcoke from China was being dumped and causing material injury to the domestic industry, leading to the imposition of provisional and final anti-dumping duties. The Central Government accepted the Designated Authority's findings and recommendations, including a corrigendum that modified the anti-dumping duty amount.

2. Authority of the Central Government to Grant Exemptions:
The petitioner argued that the Central Government did not have the power to grant exemptions from anti-dumping duty under Section 25(1) of the Customs Act, 1962, as it is a trade remedy and not equivalent to customs duty. The respondents countered that Section 25(1) provides the Central Government with the authority to grant such exemptions if it is in the public interest. The court upheld the Central Government's power to grant exemptions, referencing the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in Jaswal Neco Ltd., which validated the retrospective applicability of the exemption.

3. Discrimination in the Imposition of Anti-Dumping Duty:
The petitioner contended that the exclusion of Pig Iron manufacturers from the levy of anti-dumping duty was discriminatory and violated Rule 19 of the Rules, which mandates non-discriminatory imposition of duty. The court found that the Central Government's decision to exempt certain industries was based on the public interest and was within its legal authority, thus not discriminatory.

4. Liability of Interest on Anti-Dumping Duty:
The petitioner argued against the liability of interest on the anti-dumping duty, citing the absence of any provision for interest in the Customs Tariff Act and the Rules. The court agreed, referencing the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) vs. Goyal Traders, which held that interest could only be levied by a substantive provision, and no such provision existed in this case.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the petition, upholding the validity of Notification No. 69/2000 dated 19th May 2000, and confirmed the Central Government's authority to grant exemptions under Section 25(1) of the Customs Act. The court also ruled that the petitioner would not be liable to pay any interest on the anti-dumping duty as there was no provision for such interest in the relevant laws. The interim relief granted to the petitioner was extended until 31.07.2024.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates