2015 (3) TMI 512

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... st ground of argument of ld. Counsel is that anti-dumping duty shall be levied in terms of Notification No.72/01 dated 28.06.2001. Facts are clear on record showing that the import was done on 16.09.1998 and 23.07.1998 by two bills of entries. We surprise to note the contention that the lateral duty shall apply to past import. In anti-dumping law provisions are well made to the effect that a provi .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the appellant. We subscribe to the view that no higher rate of anti-dumping duty shall be retrospectively applicable but if the definitive duty is lower than the provisional duty, refund is admissible. 3. The third count of contention is that there is a calculation error in the anti-dumping duty and the additional customs duty. Definitive duty notification and provisional duty notification presc .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... dumping duty. Therefore it may be said that the value mis-declared related to mis-declared goods. Once such fraud is detected the goods render to be confiscated being smuggled goods under section 2 (39) of Customs Act 1962. Accordingly appellant looses all right to take plea to legalize the illegality. Therefore, we do not disturb the enhanced value arrived at by Revenue. This is in relation to Cu .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X