9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (11) TMI 356X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r the Respondent. [Order per : Chittaranjan Satapathy, Member (T)]. Heard both sides. The dispute relates to two imports. The first one was imported under Into Bond Bill of Entry for warehousing on 1-1-2002 and subsequently cleared under Ex-bond Bill of Entry dated 11-2-2002. The second import was made under Into Bond Bill of Entry dated 25-2-2002 and the same was cleared under Ex-bond B ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lar to provisions of Antidumping duty under the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 and hence no Safeguard duty is payable on the impugned imports in view of the aforementioned decisions of the Tribunal since the duty was levied subsequent to the date of imports. 4. The learned SDR argues that in the context of additional duty of customs and special additional duty of customs, the Apex Court has ruled that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... des, we find that the lower appellate authority has not gone into the merit of the case and has rejected the appeal on the ground of non-compliance with the provisions of Section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962. Considering all aspects of the case and especially the aforementioned orders of the Tribunal relating to levy of Anti-dumping duty, we are of the view that the appellants have made out a cas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
