9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (1) TMI 469 - HC - CustomsLevy of Anti-Dumping Duty - Dumped Articles imported by the petitioner - case of the petitioner is that prior to the issue of the impugned Notification No.48 /2014 dated 11.12.2014, the petitioner had contracted with the overseas supplier for the import of the goods from Saudi Arabia - HELD THAT - Anti Dumping Duty was sought to be imposed on Clear Float Glass imported from Saudi Arabia, UAL Pakistan. The petitioner approached this Court after filing the Bill of Entry when the 2nd respondent insisted that the petitioner should pay Anti Dumping Duty in terms of the above notification. The goods were allowed to be cleared after an interim order came to be passed by this Court on 09.01.2015. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner is not liable to pay Anti Dumping Duty in terms of Notification No.48/2014 -Customs (ADD) dated 11.12.2014 as the import had taken place much prior to issue of the impugned Notification as per the common law. Whether the imports had taken place before or after issuing of the impugned Notification is to be decided by a proper officer by issuing a notice to the petitioner under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962 after proper assessment in the Bill of Entries filed by the petitioner. It is for the petitioner to give a reply. Since the import pertains to the year 2014-15, the second respondent is directed to finalise the assessment in the respective Bill of Entries, if they have not yet been already finalised, in accordance with law. In case, the respective Bill of Entries have been already finalised, liberty is given to the petitioner to file a statutory appeal and the respective Bill of Entries under Section 128 of the Customs Act, 1962 before the Appellate Commissioner, within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order - Petition disposed off.
Issues:
1. Liability to pay Anti-Dumping Duty on imported Clear Float Glass. 2. Maintainability of the writ petition challenging the levy of Anti-Dumping Duty. 3. Finalization of assessment in the respective Bill of Entries. Analysis: 1. Liability to pay Anti-Dumping Duty: The petitioner sought a declaration to avoid paying Anti-Dumping Duty on imported Dumped Articles. The petitioner argued that the import occurred before the issuance of the impugned Notification No.48/2014. Citing legal precedents, the petitioner contended that the import should be considered complete upon entering the country's territories. The Court refrained from deciding the liability issue directly. Instead, it directed a proper officer to assess whether the imports occurred before or after the notification, requiring the petitioner to respond. Any amount paid by the petitioner under protest was to be considered a deposit to secure revenue interests. The Court emphasized that the assessment needed to be finalized in accordance with the law for the relevant Bill of Entries. 2. Maintainability of the writ petition: The Senior Standing Counsel for the respondent argued that the writ petition was not maintainable as the petitioner had previously challenged a similar issue in another case, which was dismissed. The respondent contended that since the petitioner did not challenge the previous order, the current writ petition lacked merit and should be dismissed. However, the Court did not find this argument compelling and proceeded to address the issues raised by the petitioner. 3. Finalization of assessment in the respective Bill of Entries: Given that the import related to the year 2014-15, the Court directed the second respondent to conclude the assessment for the respective Bill of Entries if not already done, following the law. The petitioner was granted the liberty to file a statutory appeal within 30 days if dissatisfied with the assessment outcome. The Appellate Commissioner was instructed to decide on such appeals within three months if filed within the stipulated period. All issues were left open for further consideration before the Commissioner, and any refund due to the petitioner would be processed in compliance with the law. In conclusion, the writ petition was disposed of with the above directions, without imposing any costs.
|
