9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (3) TMI 203 - HC - CustomsLevy of anti-dumping duty - Bills of Entry were assessed provisionally in view of the provisional levy under Notification No.79/2010-Customs dated 30.07.2010 - imports were made by the petitioner during the period between 30.07.2010 and 25.08.2011 - HELD THAT - It is noticed that the petitioner has been sending representations from 2012 which has not been evoked any response from the respondent. Considering the fact that the issue appears to be answered by the Hon ble Supreme Court in COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS BANGALORE VERSUS M/S. G.M. EXPORTS OTHERS 2015 (9) TMI 1162 - SUPREME COURT this writ petition is disposed off without expressing any opinion on merits of the case by directing the respondent to pass appropriate orders on the representations of the petitioner to finalize the assessment in the subjected Bills of Entry mentioned in the representations of the petitioner. Petition disposed off.
Issues:
1. Anti-dumping duty imposition under Notification No.79/2010-Customs. 2. Provisional assessment of Bills of Entry. 3. Interpretation of the term "levied" under Rule 13 of Customs Tariff Rules. 4. Response to petitioner's representations. 5. Compliance with the Supreme Court decision in G.M.Exports case. Analysis: The petitioner was initially subjected to anti-dumping duty under Notification No.79/2010-Customs, followed by a final levy under Notification No.82/2011-Customs. The petitioner contended that the Bills of Entry were provisionally assessed during this period. The counsel referred to the Supreme Court decision in Commissioner of Customs, Bangalore Vs G.M.Exports, emphasizing the interpretation of the term "levied" under Rule 13 of the Customs Tariff Rules, indicating a time limit for such levy. The petitioner had been sending representations since 2012, which remained unanswered by the respondent. Considering the clarity provided by the Supreme Court decision, the court decided to dispose of the writ petition without expressing an opinion on merits. The respondent was directed to finalize the assessment in the Bills of Entry mentioned in the petitioner's representations within three months, taking into account the G.M.Exports case. The petitioner's right to be heard before any orders are passed was acknowledged, subject to Covid-19 protocols. In conclusion, the writ petition was disposed of with the above directions, and no costs were imposed. The connected Writ Miscellaneous Petition was closed, emphasizing the need for the respondent to address the representations and comply with the Supreme Court decision within the stipulated timeframe.
|
