9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (7) TMI 348X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s and S.M. Tata, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : T.V. Sairam, Member (T) (for the Bench)]. There are two appeals filed by the appellants M/s. Relaxo Rubber Ltd. and Relaxo Footwear Ltd., challenging the Commissioner (Appeals) order made on 31-8-04. The appellants imported styrene butadiene co-polymer resin KOSYN HKS-68 under thee Bills of entry from Korea. In the year 2000 they wer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6 in Rishiroop Polymers Pvt. Ltd. v. Designated Authority and Additional Secretary reported in 2006 (196) E.L.T. 129 (S.C.), the apex Court in this judgment had an occasion to review the order passed by this Tribunal and held that the finding recorded by the Designated authority was categorical and not a clerical omission as was observed by the Tribunal. It further observed that it was not correct ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing 4002 or 3903. 5. It was argued by the learned Counsel for the appellants that in view of the judgment of Hon ble the Supreme Court, the first notification namely 107/99 was restored and as a result the product imported by the appellants cannot be charged now with anti-dumping duty under the changed circumstances. 6. The learned authorised representative for the department argues that anti- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ored. 8. In view of this, no anti-dumping duty becomes leviable under the Heading No. 39.03 after the pronouncement of the judgment by Hon ble the Supreme Court. The judgment has thus restored the original finding and the notification initially issued (notification No. 107/99). As a result, anti-dumping duty is leviable only on the goods covered under Chapter Heading No. 4002.19 and not those ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
