9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (8) TMI 630X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6. At that time, it was recorded that an identical issue, as raised in this petition, stood concluded in favour of the petitioners by the decision of Delhi High Court in the case of M/s. Kumho Petrochemicals Co. vs. Union of India and Others (Writ Petition No.1851/ 2014), decided on 11.7.2014. However, the same was subject matter of challenge before the Apex Court in Special Leave Petition No.29268-29269/2014 and had been stayed by Order dated 9.3.2015. Thus, only a Rule was issued. 3. Mr.Bhangde, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner states that now the Apex Court has dismissed the Revenue's appeal on the issue arising herein from the order of Delhi High Court in M/s.Kumbo Petrochemical Co. (supra) by its decision dated 9.6.2017 r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the following events/dates : (a) On 2.1.2009, the Respondent issued a Notification u/s.9A (1) and (5) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 imposing anti-dumping duty on import of Rubber from Korea and Germany. The validity of the above Notification was for a period of five years to remain in force till 1.1.2014. (b) On 31.12.2013, the Respondents initiated proceedings under Section 9A(5) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 for sunset review of anti-dumping duty imposed by Notification dt.2.1.2009. (c) On 23.1.2014, the Central Government issued notification extending the validity of anti-dumping duty imposed by notification dt.2.1.2009 by one year i.e. till 1.1.2015. (d) In the above facts, the Apex Court framed the following question for its co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arlier Notification dated January 02, 2009, which is clear from its language, and has been reproduced above, However, when Notification dated January 02, 2009 itself had lapsed on the expiry of five years, i.e. on January 01, 2014, and was not in existence on January 23, 2014 question of amending a non-existing Notification does not arise at all. As a sequitur, amendment was not to be carried out during the lifetime of the Notification dated January 02, 2009. The High Court, thus, rightly remarked that Notification dated January 02, 2009 was in the nature of temporary legislation and could not be amended after it lapsed. " 6. In the above view, as the facts involved in the present petition are identical to the Apex Court decision in Union ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ls Co. Ltd. (supra). We find that there was no occasion for the Delhi High Court and the Supreme Court to discuss the applicability of unjust enrichment in respect of anti-dumping duty collected under the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. Moreover, our reading of Delhi High Court decision is that it merely states that the petitioners are entitled to refund of the amount of anti-dumping duty paid till date would not do away with the requirement of the petitioner's therein satisfying the doctrine of unjust enrichment, if at all applicable in the facts of that case. 9. Be that as it may, we are bound by the decision of the Coordinate Bench of this Court in M/s.Kanakia Constructions (P) Ltd. (supra). Therefore, though the petitioners would be enti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
