9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2009 (7) TMI 732 - HC - CustomsAnti dumping duty - whether respondents are liable to pay anti-dumping duty on the import of Compact Florescent Lamps (CFL) from the Peoples Republic of China and Hong Kong based on Annexure B notification issued by the Central Government. Levy after expiry of notification providing for provisional levy. Notification later issued for definitive duty from date of provisional levy. Tribunal held that anti dumping duty cannot levied after expiry of previous notification. Tribunal not found later Notification invalid. Held that Annexure B notification issued giving effect to it s provisions from the date of levy of provisional duty under Annexure A notification is consistent with the provisions of the Act and Rules. In other words, once provisional anti-dumping duty is levied for any goods, any subsequent import of such goods will attract anti-dumping duty if final orders provide for levy with effect from the date of provisional order. We are therefore of the view that the Tribunal went wrong in holding that anti-dumping duty cannot be levied or collected from the respondents after expiry of Annexure A notification.
Issues Involved:
1. Liability to pay anti-dumping duty on imports of Compact Fluorescent Lamps (CFL) from China and Hong Kong. 2. Validity and applicability of Annexure B notification for anti-dumping duty. 3. Tribunal's authority to challenge the validity of notifications under Section 9A of the Customs Tariff Act. 4. Interpretation of Rule 20 and Rule 21 of the Anti-dumping Rules. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Liability to Pay Anti-dumping Duty: The primary issue was whether respondents are liable to pay anti-dumping duty on the import of CFLs from China and Hong Kong based on Annexure B notification. The Department contended that anti-dumping duty was introduced under Annexure B with effect from 21-12-2001, the same date as the provisional duty under Annexure A. The Tribunal had held that since the provisional notification (Annexure A) had expired, anti-dumping duty was not payable by the respondents. However, the High Court held that the Tribunal erred in its judgment by not considering the relevant clause of Annexure B, which clearly provided for anti-dumping duty from the date of the provisional duty. 2. Validity and Applicability of Annexure B Notification: The High Court emphasized that the Tribunal did not have the authority to question the validity of Annexure B notification, which was issued under Section 9A(5) of the Customs Tariff Act. The Court found that the Tribunal's decision was contrary to the provisions of Annexure B, which mandated the levy of anti-dumping duty from the date of the provisional duty. The Court clarified that the final notification (Annexure B) was consistent with the Act and Rules, allowing for the levy of duty from the date of the provisional notification. 3. Tribunal's Authority to Challenge Notifications: The Court stated that the Tribunal had no power to challenge the validity of Annexure B notification. The Tribunal's role was to apply the notification as issued by the Central Government. The High Court reiterated that the Tribunal's assumption that the levy under Annexure B was retrospective was incorrect, as the notification was issued under Section 9A(5) and Rule 20(2)(a), which do not pertain to retrospective levy. 4. Interpretation of Rule 20 and Rule 21 of the Anti-dumping Rules: The High Court discussed the provisions of Rule 20 and Rule 21 in detail. Rule 20(2)(a) allows the government to levy anti-dumping duty from the date of imposition of provisional duty if the final findings confirm injury. The Court clarified that Rule 21, which deals with the refund of duty, does not apply to imports made after the expiry of the provisional notification. The Court concluded that the final notification (Annexure B) was valid and consistent with the provisions of the Customs Tariff Act and Anti-dumping Rules. Conclusion: The High Court vacated the orders of the Tribunal and the first appellate authority, restoring the levy and demand of anti-dumping duty on the respondents under Annexure B, the final notification. The Court endorsed the view expressed by the Principal Bench of the Tribunal in similar cases, confirming the validity and applicability of the anti-dumping duty as per the final notification.
|
