Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (5) TMI 288 - HC - CustomsImposition of anti-dumping duty on Metcoke (Metallurgical Code) - Origin from China P.R - liability of interest Interest chargeable on duties - Validity Of Notification No. 69/2000-Customs - Central Government also exempted import of Metcoke by a manufacturer of Pig Iron or Steel using a blast furnace in the said Notification - Whether the anti-dumping duty would be a part of the duty which is covered by Section 25(1) of the Customs Act or not - HELD THAT - As per the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Jaswal Neco Ltd. 2015 (8) TMI 243 - SUPREME COURT the Central Government has considered the effect of the Notification No. 69/2000 and approved to the fact that such Notification is applicable retrospectively and the manufacturers of Pig Iron Steel using the blast furnace were not even liable to pay interest as no provisions for levy of interest is provided either in the Customs Act or in the Customs Tariff Act. Notification No. 75/2003-Customs dated 2nd May 2003 the Notification No. 69/2000 was revoked with effect from 5th May 2004 by extending the anti-dumping duty for another one year and the same was rescinded by Notification No. 22/2004-Customs dated 21st January 2004 on being satisfied it was necessary in the public interest so to do. The Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of TATA Chemicals Limited (2) vs. Union of India and others 2008 (3) TMI 17 - SUPREME COURT clarified that the order dated 24th August 2000 passed in TATA Chemicals Ltd (1) vs. Union of India 2000 (8) TMI 1147 - SC ORDER to the fact that the decision in the case of Saurashtra Chemicals Ltd vs. Union of India 2000 (5) TMI 38 - SC ORDER was on account of the fact that the relevant aspects were not brought to the notice of the Bench and held that the appeals before the CEGAT were maintainable when the challenge was to the determination made. In view of the above fact that the appeal was maintainable before the CEGAT the Central Government was thereafter justified in passing the impugned Notification No. 69/2000 dated 19th May 2000. As per above conspectus of law and for the foregoing reasons and the settled legal position that the Central Government is entitled to grant exemption while exercising the powers under the provisions of Section 25(1) of the Customs Act no interference is called for in the impugned Notification No. 69/2000 dated 19th May 2000 and this petition to that extent is accordingly dismissed. As per the interim order passed by this Court the petitioner is clearing the goods on filing of the undertaking and/or bond as this petition is dismissed the interim relief stands vacated forthwith. Therefore so far as the liability of interest which may accrue it was submitted by the learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner if this petition is not entertained then the petitioner may not be saddled with the liability of interest. Thus the petitioner would not be liable to pay any interest on the amount of anti-dumping duty which would be leviable as per the Notification No. 69/2000 dated 19th May 2000 till such levy was revoked by Notification No. 22/2004 with effect from 2004 without any interest. This petition is accordingly disposed of.
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.
|