9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (8) TMI 630X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 37 of 2015, dt.6.8.2015 is quashed and set aside. Besides seeking quashing of the impugned notification, the petitioners also seek a direction that the respondent be directed to refund anti-dumping duty paid by the petitioner after 25.7.2015. We are not inclined to grant this prayer in view of decision of this Court in Commissioner of Customs (Imports), Mumbai .vs. Kanakia Constructions Pvt. Ltd., [2008 (7) TMI 156 - HIGH COURT BOMBAY], wherein our Court has set aside the order of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal which had held that since antidumping duty is covered by Section 9A of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, the doctrine of unjust enrichment does not apply. This Court restored the issue to the Tribunal for fre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he issue arising herein from the order of Delhi High Court in M/s.Kumbo Petrochemical Co. (supra) by its decision dated 9.6.2017 reported in Union of India .vs. M/s. Kumbo Petrochemical Co., 2017 (7) Scale 3. 4. Briefly, the dates relevant for the purpose of this petition are as under : (a) On 26.7.2010, the Central Government issued Notification No.76 of 2010 Customs (ADD) in exercise of its powers under Section 9A(1) and (5) of the Customs Tariff Act. By the above Notification No.76 of 2010 an antidumping duty on import of viscose staple fibre originating in or exported from People's Republic of China and Indonesia was imposed. This Notification No.76 of 2010 imposed by virtue of Clause 2 thereof on anti-dumping duty for a period of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation 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 consideration : "Whether Amendment Notification dated January 23, 2014, amending Notification dated January 02, 2009 by allowing it to remain in force till January 01, 2015 issued after the expiry date of the original Notification i.e. January 01, 2014 is without any legal authority and is, therefore, null and void ?" (e) The Apex Court answered the aforesaid question as under : "36.As noticed above, the High Court has held that once the earlier Notification by which anti-dumping duty was extended by five years, i.e. up to January 01, 2014, expired, the Central Government was not empowered to issue any Notifica ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lapsed. " 6. In the above view, as the facts involved in the present petition are identical to the Apex Court decision in Union of India vs. M/s. Kumho Petrochemicals Co. Ltd (supra), the impugned Notification No.37 of 2015, dt.6.8.2015 is quashed and set aside. 7. Besides seeking quashing of the impugned notification, the petitioners also seek a direction that the respondent be directed to refund anti-dumping duty paid by the petitioner after 25.7.2015. We are not inclined to grant this prayer in view of decision of this Court in Commissioner of Customs (Imports), Mumbai .vs. Kanakia Constructions Pvt. Ltd., 2008 (230) E.L.T. 592 (Bom.), wherein our Court has set aside the order of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax Appellate Trib ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
