9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (11) TMI 915 - AT - CustomsLevy of anti-dumping duty - Reflective Glass - applicability of 4/2009 dated 06.01.2009 - whether the importer is eligible for the benefit of exemption from anti-dumping duty during the relevant period i.e., from 06.01.2009 to 22.05.2009? - HELD THAT - Though the Notification No.165/2003-cus. dated 12.11.2003 and Notification No.51/2009-Cus. dated 22.5.2009 excluded reflective glass from the levy of anti-dumping duty whereas the Notification No.4/2009-Cus. dated 06.01.2009 did not exclude Reflective Glass. As claimed by the appellant, there could be an omission but that omission cannot be set right by the Customs authorities in as much as the Customs Notifications are issued only on the basis of the findings of the DGAD and their notifications. The Supreme Court of India in the case of STATE OF GUJARAT VERSUS ARCELOR MITTAL NIPPON STEEL INDIA LIMITED 2022 (1) TMI 1013 - SUPREME COURT held that so far as the submission on behalf of the respondent that prior to 14-11-2000, there was no demand of the purchase tax and/or the exemption from payment of purchase tax was made available in the earlier assessment years and, therefore, in the subsequent assessment years also, the respondent-assessee shall be entitled to the exemption is concerned, the aforesaid has no substance. In the taxation matters, every assessment year/period is a different year/period. In view of above observations of the Supreme Court, the question of interpreting the exemption Notification has to be done in the manner specified in the Notification. In the present case, since Reflective Glass is not found in the Notification No.4/2009-Cus. dated 06.01.2009 for exempting them from anti-dumping duty, question of extending the benefit does not arise. The Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly held that no attempt can be made to infer the motive or meaning of the Notification other than what is emanating from the plain language of the Notification. The order of the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld - appeal dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Leviability of anti-dumping duty on "Dark Green Reflective Float Glass" imported by the appellant. 2. Interpretation of exemption notifications and their applicability to the imported goods. Summary: Issue 1: Leviability of Anti-Dumping Duty The appellant, M/s. Glass House, filed a Bill of Entry for the clearance of "Dark Green Reflective Float Glass" imported from China. The original authority confirmed the duty amount of Rs. 1,50,649/- along with interest under Section 18(3) of the Customs Act 1962, based on Notification No.4/2009 Cus. dated 06.01.2009. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this decision, noting that while Notification No. 165/2003-Cus. dated 12.11.2003 excluded Reflective Glass from anti-dumping duty, Notification No.4/2009 did not. Issue 2: Interpretation of Exemption NotificationsThe appellant argued that the omission of Reflective Glass from Notification No.4/2009 was inadvertent, as it was excluded in both prior and subsequent notifications (No. 165/2003 and No. 51/2009 respectively). They contended that the Customs Authorities should not impose anti-dumping duty on Reflective Glass as it was not approved by the Director-General of Anti-dumping (DGAD). The Revenue countered that the levy was justified as per the existing notification at the time of import. The Tribunal examined the relevant notifications and found that Notification No.4/2009-Cus. dated 06.01.2009 did not exclude Reflective Glass from anti-dumping duty. Citing the Supreme Court's ruling in the case of Dilip Kumar, the Tribunal emphasized that exemption notifications should be interpreted strictly, and any ambiguity should be resolved in favor of the revenue. The Tribunal concluded that since Reflective Glass was not exempted in Notification No.4/2009, the benefit of exemption could not be extended. Therefore, the Tribunal upheld the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and dismissed the appeal, affirming the leviability of anti-dumping duty on the imported Reflective Glass. The appeal was dismissed. (Order pronounced in open court 20/11/2023.)
|
