9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (9) TMI 731X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... an currency, therefore, based on these two Notifications, the Commissioner (A) was right in imposing and demanding Antidumping duty from the appellant during the intervening period of provisional Anti-dumping Notification and final Anti-dumping Notification. The Hon ble Supreme Court vide its order dated 23.09.2015 in the case of Commissioner of Customs, Bangalore vs. G.M. Exports [ 2015 (9) TMI 1162 - SUPREME COURT] after elaborating Section 9A(6) of the Customs Tariff Act, the Customs Tariff (Identification, Assessment and Clearance of Anti- Dumping Duty on Dumped Articles and for Determination of Injury) Rules, 1995 held that anti-dumping duty during the interregnum between the expiry of a provisional duty notification and the imposition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rovisional Anti-dumping duty was imposed on CD-R vide Notification No.105/2006 dated 6.10.2006, which is reproduced hereinbelow: Notification No.105/2006-Cus. dated 6.10.2006 Anti-dumping duty on Compact Discs-Recordable (CD-Rs), originating in, or exported from People's Republic of China, Hong Kong, Singapore and Chinese Taipei Whereas, in the matter of import of Compact Discs-Recordable (CD-Rs, hereinafter referred to as the subject goods), falling under tariff item 8523 90 50 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (51 of 1975) originating in, or exported from the People's Republic of China, Hong Kong, Singapore and Chinese Taipei (hereinafter referred to as the subject countries), the designated authority, in its p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... an currency. The Final Notification No.78/2007-Cus. dated 29.06.2007 as reproduced above stated that the Anti-dumping duty imposed under this Notification shall be levied with effect from the date of imposition of the provisional Anti-dumping duty and shall be paid in Indian currency, therefore, based on these two Notifications, the Commissioner (A) was right in imposing and demanding Antidumping duty from the appellant during the intervening period of provisional Anti-dumping Notification and final Anti-dumping Notification. He had rightly relied on the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala order dated 15.7.2009 as reported in 2010 (253) E.L.T. 734 (Ker.). This order of the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala along with other appeals was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re would be no reason or justification to hold that the levy of anti-dumping duty must sustain a break during the period between the expiry of the provisional duty notification and the issuance of a notification imposing a final anti-dumping duty. The High Court went on to hold that the object and purpose underlying Section 9A would be defeated, as for the interregnum period where both dumping and material injury to domestic industry are found, no antidumping duty can be issued. This conclusion again cannot be countenanced for the simple reason that if Rule 20(2)(a) were to be construed in the fashion suggested by the High Court, it would be ultra vires Section 9A for the reasons already given by us. Further, the object and purpose of Secti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
