9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (1) TMI 75X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... said orders and further to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus declaring imposing of anti dumping duties upon the KHS-68 as ultra vires to Sections 9A and 9B of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 and the Customs Tariff (Identification Assessment and collection of Anti-dumping Duty on Dumped Articles and for Determination of Injury) Rules, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 1995) and the notification dated 22nd May, 2000. According to the petitioner, the notification dated 22nd May, 2000 has no manner of application in respect of the KHS-68 goods since the same is coming under Chapter 39 under Heading 39.03. According to the petitioner, due to liberalisation of Imports and Exports the Styrene Butadine Rubber was imported from Korea and other countries at the cheaper rate for which Indian manufacturers of Styrene Butadine Rubber coming under Chapter 40 of the classification under Customs Tariff and the Indian manufacturers were suffering loss. With the object of protecting the Indian manufacturers of different goods Sections 9A and 9B was inserted in the Customs Tariff Act, 1985 for imposing anti dumping duty on the import of the goods manufactured by Indian manufacturers. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nding of the Designated authority. After the judgment of CEGAT, the Central Government issued a Notification bearing No. 73 of 2000, dated 22nd May, 2000. The petitioner further stated that two other Companies preferred two appeals before the authorities and the authorities concerned held anti dumping duty would be imposed upon the KHS-68 in view of the Notification dated 22nd May, 2000 and the companies after the order of imposition of anti dumping duty, preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Appeals and the Commissioner upheld the order of the authorities. Thereafter the said Companies preferred appeal before the CEGAT, New Delhi and by a judgment and order dated 26th April, 2001, the CEGAT came to the conclusion that the goods imported that is SBR-KHS-68 the anti dumping duty could not be imposed and the authority could not levy any duty. Inspite of the said order, the Customs authorities, according to the petitioner are regularly imposing anti dumping duty on KHS-68. According the petitioner, such duty was imposed upon the petitioner on 26th June, 2000. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that no anti dumping duty could be imposed on KHS- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nti dumping duty has been imposed on SBR falling under sub-heading 4002.19 only. This is a clerical omission which is required to be corrected. Thus, we make it clear that anti dumping duty is on all grades of SBR, whether falling under sub-heading 4002 or 3903. Customs authorities have to impose duty on all types of SBR, irrespective of their classification." 6.He, further contended that the Designated authority has passed an order dated 3rd July, 2000 wherein it has been confirmed that the authority recognises the need for continuation of imposition of definitive anti dumping duty on all imports of SBR falling under Page 40. Customs Head 4002.19 and Page 39 Customs Head 3903.90 originating in or exported from the subject countries as are invited vide Customs Notification No. 73 of 2000, dated 22nd May, 2000. Accordingly, Mr. Banerjee submitted that it is clear that the writ petitioner has tried to give a totally incorrect impression as if the goods are falling under Chapter 39.03 are not covered under the purview of anti dumping duty. 7.He, further contended that the writ petitioner has also suppressed the fact that through advertisements given by the Korean manufacturer the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... anerjee submitted that the writ application is liable to be dismissed. 9.The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the added respondent also submitted that no relief should be granted to the petitioner in view of the fact that the matter has already been decided by the CEGAT and further the writ Court is not the proper forum for adjudication of classification disputes which necessarily involve factual investigation into disputed question of fact as to the technical, chemical compositions of the goods involved, their uses and how they are commercially sold and dealt with and he relied upon a judgments reported in 1999 (111) E.L.T. 8 (S.C.) (Todi Industries Ltd. v Union of India); 1999 (109) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.) Commissioner of Sales Tax (Asst.), Kerala v. P. Kesavan Co.; 1997 (92) E.L.T. 19 (S.C.) State of Goa v. Leuko Plast (India) Ltd.; and [(1983) 142 ITR 631 (S.C.). Titagarh Paper Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of Orissa. Accordingly, he submitted that this application must be dismissed. 10.After considering the facts and circumstances of this case, I do not have any hesitation to come to a conclusion that the petitioner did not come with clean hands before this Court of equity. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
