9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (11) TMI 366X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in anticipation of final Anti Dumping Notification - demand raised on imports levying duty under Notification no. 73/03 dated 1.5.2003 w.e.f. date of imposition of provisional anti dumping duty i.e 2.05.2002 - assessee contesting the same - Held that:- Under provisions of Rule 20(2) of Anti Dumping Duty Rules, the Government has the power to impose final anti dumping duty from the date of imposit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .5.2002, which expired on 1.11.2002. However, the goods continued to be assessed provisionally even after 1.11.2002 in anticipation of final Anti Dumping Notification. Notification no. 73/03 dated 1.5.2003 was issued under sub-section (1) of Section 9A of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 read with Rules 18 and 20 of the Anti Dumping Rules, 1995. This notification levied anti dumping duty on the impugn ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ority dismissed their appeal on the ground that the Larger bench of this Tribunal in the case of Nitco Tiles Ltd. vs. Designated Authority 2006(193)ELT 17(Tri-Del) had held that anti dumping duty can be validly imposed from the date of imposition of provisional anti dumping duty and continued to operate even during the interregnum period. Accordingly, he dismissed their appeal. Hence, the appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ules, 1995. A similar view as taken by the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in the case of Commissioner of Customs vs. Akash Trading Co. 2010 (253) ELT 734 (Ker) . Though the appeal has been filed against the order of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court before the Hon'ble Apex Court, no stay has been granted against the said decision. Accordingly, he concedes that decision of the lower appellate author ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
