TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether pre-deposit of the differential anti-dumping duty demanded on the imported goods was required to be maintained, in view of Rule 21 of the Customs Tariff (Anti-dumping Duty on Dumped Articles) Rules, 1995 and the decision of the Gujarat High Court.
Analysis: The dispute concerned the demand of differential anti-dumping duty between the provisional duty collected under Notification No. 6/2000 dated 27-1-2000 and the final duty determined by Notification No. 109/2000-Cus. The earlier stay order had required deposit of a part of the duty on the view that Section 9A(3) of the Customs Tariff Act prevailed over Rule 21 of the Customs Tariff (Anti-dumping Duty on Dumped Articles) Rules, 1995. A later decision of the Gujarat High Court, however, held that in view of Rule 21, the assessees should not be called upon to make any pre-deposit. In deference to that decision, the stay order was modified.
Conclusion: Pre-deposit of the duty was waived during the pendency of the appeal.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
