9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (6) TMI 452X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (CFL, for short) imported by the appellants and cleared under four Bills of Entry during November-December, 2002. The CFLs are of Chinese origin and hence attracted two Notifications viz. Notification No. 128/2001, dt. 21-12-2001 (provisional) and Notification No. 138/2002, dt. 10-12-2002 (final). The goods were provisionally cleared against bonds executed by the importer, which were valid for 6 months. The bonds were not renewed, nor was any such renewal requisitioned. No show-cause notice was issued by the department. The jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner of Customs, however, issued a letter to the party proposing finalization of provisional assessments under Section 18 (2) of the Customs Act and directing them to submit documents f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... from the records that the appellate authority heard counsel for the assessee and subsequently passed an interim order directing them to predeposit 75% of the amount of duty within the time stipulated by it. The appellants did not deposit this amount. The appellate authority dismissed their appeal for want of pre-deposit. Hence the present appeal. We have heard ld. Counsel for the appellants and ld. SDR for the Revenue. 3. Ld. Counsel has pointed out that the Commissioner (Appeals) had passed similar orders in the cases of other CFL importers and that such orders were taken in appeal to this Tribunal. It is submitted that those appeals have been allowed by way of remand with a direction to the Commissioner (Appeals) to dispose of the asse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ne by the Asst. Commissioner under Section 18(2) of the Customs Act de hors the fact that the PD bond executed by the assessee at the time of provisional release of the goods had expired long back. We also took into account the fact that there is no charging provision for provisional anti-dumping duty and that a Notification determining the final anti-dumping duty with retrospective effect is repugnant to Rules 13 20 of the Anti-dumping Rules. This view of the Tribunal, taken on a legal issue, vide our Final Order Nos. 14-20/2007 dt. 4-1-07, ibid is yet to be challenged by the Revenue. In the circumstances, the respondent cannot be heard to say that the view taken by this Bench in final order dated 4-1-07 is legally incorrect. On the ques ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
