9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (8) TMI 752 - AT - CustomsLevy of Anti Dumping Duty (ADD) - Diethyl Thio Phosphoryl Chloride (DETPC) imported from China - applicability of amendment brought forth to subsection (8) of Section 9A of the Tariff Act - HELD THAT - The sub section (8) to 9 A of Customs Tariff Act, 1975 adopts the provisions of Customs Act for implementation of Anti-Dumping Duty Notifications. Prior to 19.08.2009, sub section (8) of Section 9 did not adopt provision of section 15 of Customs Act which relates to determination of the date on which the rate of duty applies. After amendment w.e.f. 19.08.2009, this provision is also included. It can be seen that prior to 19.08.2009, subsection (8) did not specify that the provisions contained in Section 15 of Customs Act would be applicable to determine the date on which the rate of duty / ADD is payable - The Hon ble Apex Court in the case of SNEH ENTERPRISES VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, NEW DELHI 2006 (9) TMI 179 - SUPREME COURT was dealing with the situation prior to amendment to subsection (8) of 9 A and held that ADD would be payable at the time of import of the goods. Taking note of the amendment, the Commissioner (Appeals) has held that appellant is not liable to pay ADD. The decision in the case of M/S. LSML PRIVATE LTD. VERSUS PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (VICE-VERSA) 2022 (2) TMI 682 - CESTAT CHENNAI relied by the Ld. AR is not applicable to the facts of the case before us as the decision related to imports made after amendment to subsection (8) of 9 A. The appellant is not liable to pay the Anti-Dumping Duty as the Notification No.73/2009 dated 22.06.2009 was not in existence at the time of import of goods. The impugned order does not call for any interference. The same is sustained. Appeal dismissed.
Issues involved:
The appeal involves the question of liability to pay Anti-Dumping Duty (ADD) on goods imported prior to the issuance of Notification no. 73/2009 dated 22.06.2009 imposing ADD on goods imported from China. Summary of Judgment: Issue 1: Liability to pay ADD on imported goods The respondent imported goods from China and filed a bill of entry for warehousing the goods, followed by an ex-bond bill of entry for clearance for home consumption. The department demanded payment of ADD on the goods after the issuance of Notification no. 73/2009. The original authority confirmed the demand, but the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the order. The Tribunal considered whether the appellant is liable to pay ADD on the imported goods. Issue 1 Details: - The Tribunal analyzed the provisions of Customs Tariff Act, 1975 before and after the amendment to subsection (8) of Section 9A, which determines the date on which the rate of duty applies. - Prior to 19.08.2009, the subsection did not include provisions of section 15 of Customs Act for determining the rate of duty. The Tribunal noted that the decision in the case of Sneh Enterprises would be applicable for imports made before the amendment. - The Tribunal held that the appellant is not liable to pay ADD as the goods were imported before the notification imposing ADD came into effect. The decision in favor of the appellant was sustained based on the legal interpretation of relevant statutes and notifications. Separate Judgment: - The judgment was pronounced by Hon'ble Ms. Sulekha Beevi C. S., Member (Judicial), and Hon'ble Mr. Vasa Seshagiri Rao, Member (Technical). - The appeal filed by the department was dismissed, and the appellant was not held liable to pay Anti-Dumping Duty on the imported goods. This summary provides an overview of the legal judgment, focusing on the issues involved, arguments presented by both parties, and the Tribunal's decision based on the interpretation of relevant legal provisions and notifications.
|
