Anti-dumping duty pre-deposit waived where imports occurred before any operative duty-imposing notification was in force.

Anti-dumping duty was sought on vitrified tiles cleared before the relevant duty-imposing notification came into force. The dispute turned on whether a subsequent notification could be applied retrospectively and whether the provisional notification had been shown to be extended. Finding that no operative duty-imposing notification was in force at the time of importation, CESTAT held that the appellant had made out a strong prima facie case. On that basis, the appellant was granted waiver of pre-deposit of the entire duty amount and stay of recovery pending appeal, while the merits of the duty liability were left open.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant made out a prima facie case for waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery of anti-dumping duty demanded on goods cleared before the anti-dumping notification came into force.

Analysis: The application concerned duty demanded after clearance of imported vitrified tiles. The dispute turned on whether anti-dumping duty could be recovered for a period when no notification imposing such duty was in force, and whether the subsequent notification operated retrospectively in the manner contended by the Revenue. As the provisional notification said to impose the duty had not been shown to have been extended, the appellant's contention that no liability arose at the time of importation was treated as raising a strong prima facie case.

Conclusion: The appellant was held entitled to waiver of pre-deposit of the entire duty amount and stay of recovery during pendency of the appeal.

Final Conclusion: Interim relief was granted, leaving the merits of the duty liability to be decided in the appeal.

Ratio Decidendi: Anti-dumping duty cannot be required to be pre-deposited where the appellant shows a strong prima facie case that the goods were imported when no operative duty-imposing notification was in force.

---