2023 (1) TMI 999 - AT - Customs

Levy of Anti-Dumping Duty - effective date of the notification -import of two consignments of Propylene Glycol from USA falling under CTH 29053200 - N/N. 117/2009-Cus., dated 13-10-2009 extending the N/N. 105/2004-Cus., dated 8-10-2004 - HELD THAT - The issue involved in the present matter is whether Anti-dumping duty on Propylene Glycol, which was imposed by Notification No. 105/2004 dtd. 08.10.2004 and which came to an end on 08.10.2009 by virtue of Section 9A(5) of the Customs Act, 1962, can be demanded in respect of goods imported after 08.10.2009, when the same had not been extended before the said expiry on 08.10.2009 and whether the extension after the said expiry by Notification No. 117/2009 dtd. 13.10.2009 is valid in law. The demand confirmed by the adjudicating authority is not sustainable - Appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether anti-dumping duty on Propylene Glycol can be demanded for goods imported after the expiry of the relevant notification?
2. Whether the extension of the anti-dumping duty notification after its expiry is valid in law?

Analysis:
1. The case involved the import of Propylene Glycol and the subsequent levy of anti-dumping duty by Notification No. 105/2004, which expired on 08-10-2009. The issue was whether the duty could be demanded for imports made after the expiry. The appellant argued citing a previous case that imports after the expiry of the notification are not liable for anti-dumping duty. The tribunal referred to the legal provisions and a Supreme Court judgment emphasizing that once a notification enforcing anti-dumping duty expires and is non-existent, it cannot be extended. As the relevant notification had expired before the extension, the tribunal held that no duty could be levied post-expiry, setting aside the demand and allowing the appeal.

2. The second issue pertained to the validity of extending the anti-dumping duty notification after its expiry. The tribunal, relying on the Supreme Court judgment, reiterated that an expired and non-existent notification cannot be extended. Since the original notification had lapsed before the extension, the tribunal concluded that the duty imposed post-expiry was not sustainable. Consequently, the impugned order confirming the demand was set aside, and the appeal was allowed. The tribunal's decision was based on the legal principles outlined in the Supreme Court judgment, emphasizing the necessity of a valid notification for the imposition of anti-dumping duty. The judgment highlighted the importance of timely extensions and the legal constraints on extending duties post-expiry. The tribunal's analysis focused on the specific legal provisions and their application to the case at hand, ultimately leading to the decision in favor of the appellant.