9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (10) TMI 1021 - HC - CustomsLevy and collection of Anti-Dumping Duty - Extra Clear Float Glass - N/N. 4/2009-Cus. dated 6.1.2009 as amended from time to time - HELD THAT - Learned advocate for the respondent was apprised of the provisions of Sub-section (2) of Section 131BA above, that where a appeal is not filed pursuant to the orders or instructions, such non-filing of appeal in a given case shall not preclude the competent authority from filing any appeal, application and revision or reference in any other case involving the same or similar issues or questions of law. Sub-section (3) says that non-filing of appeal in a given case will not be treated that the authority has acquiesced in the decision on the disputed issue by non filing appeal. In the facts and circumstances of the case, Rule. Expedited.
Issues:
1. Setting aside the order passed by the Appellate Tribunal. 2. Determining the liability of Extra Clear Float Glass for Anti-Dumping Duty. 3. Prohibiting clearance of Extra Clear Float Glass without levy of Anti-Dumping Duty. Issue 1: Setting aside the order passed by the Appellate Tribunal The petitioner sought to set aside the order dated 5.7.2019 passed by the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal in Customs Appeal Nos.399 and 400 of 2011. The Tribunal had allowed the appeals of the assessee company, holding that Extra Clear Float Glass imported by them was not liable for Anti-Dumping Duty. The Tribunal found that the Extra Clear Float Glass and Clear Float Glass were not similar products for the purpose of Anti-Dumping Duty. The petitioner, representing the industry, challenged this decision, claiming it would have adverse economic effects. The Department did not file an appeal against this decision due to low monetary impact, as per instructions issued by the Department of Revenue. The petitioner argued that a subsequent notification recommended that Extra Clear Float Glass should not be excluded from the product under consideration, suggesting that the Tribunal's decision was erroneous. Issue 2: Determining the liability of Extra Clear Float Glass for Anti-Dumping Duty After detailed analysis and technical consideration, a notification concluded that Extra Clear Float Glass could not be excluded from the scope of the product under consideration. The petitioner relied on this notification to argue that the Tribunal's decision was incorrect and should not be upheld. The Court directed the Department to file an affidavit clarifying its stance on the impact of the Tribunal's decision on the industry's economics. The Department's affidavit stated that the Tribunal's decision appeared vague and illogical, suggesting that Extra Clear Float Glass logically fell under the category of Float Glass and should attract Anti-Dumping Duty. Issue 3: Prohibiting clearance of Extra Clear Float Glass without levy of Anti-Dumping Duty The respondent Department cited Section 131BA of The Customs Act, 1962, which regulates the filing of appeals by the Commissioner of Customs. The Department claimed it was unable to file an appeal due to the provisions of this section. However, the Court noted that non-filing of an appeal in one case would not preclude the authority from filing an appeal in another case involving similar issues. As an interim relief, the Court stayed the impugned judgment and order passed by the Appellate Tribunal until the final outcome of the Special Civil Application, with the rights and obligations of the parties subject to this stay.
|
