2017 (10) TMI 366

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Notification and the imposition of final ADD by subsequent notification, now stands settled by the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Customs Vs. G.M. Exports [2015 (9) TMI 1162 - SUPREME COURT], where it was held that there can be no levy of anti-dumping duty in the “gap” or interregnum period between the lapse of the provisional duty and the imposition of the final .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... lidity of the ADD Notification No. 128/2001. When a subsequent notification was issued finalizing the above notification, vide Notification No. 138/2002 dated 10.12.2002, making the duty payment effective from 21.12.2001, the department raised demand of the differential duty which has arisen due to time gap. The appellant did not attend the personal hearing and the original authority issued Order- .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... cted the Commissioner (Appeals) to pass a speaking order on merits in accordance with law without insisting for any predeposit. Revenue filed appeal against the said final order of Tribunal and in respect of six other appellants before the Honble High Court of Madras. The Honble High Court dismissed the appeals filed by Revenue. Thus, in effect, the present appeal was remanded to the Commissione .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X