9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (2) TMI 246X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ort) imported by the respondent herein and cleared under flour Bills of Entry during November-December 2002. The CFLs are of Chinese origin and are governed by two notifications viz., Notification No.128/2001 dated 21.12.2001 (Provisional) and Notification NO.138/2002 dated 10.12.2002 (final). The goods imported by the respondent were provisionally cleared under Section 18(1) of the Act against the bonds executed by the importer for a period of six months. The bonds were not renewed nor were any such renewal requisitioned by the Department. Further, no show cause notice was issued by the Department. The Assistant Commissioner of Customs, however, issued a letter to the importer proposing finalisation of provisional assessments under S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nal following its earlier order dated 4.1.2007 made in Final Order No.14-20/2007. 3. Mr. Udayakumar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has very strenuously contended that in this case the revenue involved is very huge. Each case has to be adjudicated depending upon the facts of the particular case. Though power has been vested with the authorities for granting waiver of the pre-deposit. That power has been exercised judiciously. In this case the Tribunal has passed the order of waiving the pre-deposit for no reason. 4. We heard the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the materials on record. 5. The Tribunal has given its reasoning as follows: "... 5. After giving careful consideration to the sub ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... " 6. Thus, the Tribunal has found a strong prima facie case in favour of the importer against the levy of anti-dumping duty retrospectively. As a matter of fact the Tribunal relied on its earlier Final Order dated 4.1.2007 on the very same issue which is the requirement of judicial consistency. It is not established before us that the order of the Tribunal dated 4.1.2007 has been modified or altered by any Court. Even assuming that the Department has filed an appeal against the said order that would not by itself is a reason for not following the order of the Tribunal (vide Sri Rajendra Mills Limited Vs. Joint Commercial Tax Officer, Salem, reported in (1971) 28 STC 483). Having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
