9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (4) TMI 304X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... R, for the Respondent. [Order per : Justice R.K. Abichandani, President]. In this appeal, the learned counsel places reliance on the earlier Interim Stay Orders No. S/87-90/06-Cus. dated 29-3-2006 and S/83-84/06-Cus. dated 31-3-2006 whereunder it was observed that, no duty was demanded from those applicants and that the provisions of confiscation or penalty in respect of violation relati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ffences and penalties were also incorporated. 3. In this matter, however, we find from the impugned order that not only anti-dumping duty amounts of Rs. 1,34,80,020/- and Rs. 84,60,948/- in respect of Bill of Entry Nos. 361632 dated 19-6-2003 and 158324 dated 2-7-2003 respectively were involved, but also customs duty amounts of Rs. 8,52,377/-, Rs. 11,58,724/-, Rs. 11,13,725/- and Rs. 5,30,233/- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and the import was made prior to 2004 and, therefore, penalty cannot be levied, will be valid only in the context of anti-dumping duty and not in the context of the customs duty, held to be recoverable under the impugned order. Keeping this in mind and having regard to all the facts and circumstances of the case, we direct that there shall be interim stay of the impugned order imposing penalty on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
