2012 (11) TMI 366 - AT - Customs

Government's Authority Upheld for Anti-Dumping Duty Imposition During Transitional Periods

M/s SHETH DEVELOPERS PVT LTD Versus COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (IMPORT), MUMBAI

The Tribunal upheld the government's authority to levy anti-dumping duty from the date of provisional duty imposition, even during the interregnum period ... Anti-dumping duty - date of applicability of new notification no. 73/03 - appellant imported vitrified/porcelain tiles from China during the period February to April, 2003 - goods assessed provisionally under Notification no. 50/2002 dated 2.5.2002, which expired on 1.11.2002, in anticipation of final Anti Dumping Notification - demand raised on imports levying duty under Notification no. 73/03 dated 1.5.2003 w.e.f. date of imposition of provisional anti dumping duty i.e 2.05.2002 - assessee contesting the same - Held that:- Under provisions of Rule 20(2) of Anti Dumping Duty Rules, the Government has the power to impose final anti dumping duty from the date of imposition of the provisional anti dumping duty - Decided against assessee Issues:- Applicability of anti-dumping duty on imported goods during an interregnum period between the expiration of provisional anti-dumping duty notification and the introduction of a subsequent anti-dumping duty notification.Detailed Analysis:Issue 1: Applicability of anti-dumping duty during the interregnum periodThe case involved the import of vitrified/porcelain tiles by M/s Sheth Developers Pvt. Ltd. from China during a period when the anti-dumping duty notification was transitioning. The appellant contested the demand for anti-dumping duty on goods imported between February to April 2003, arguing that they should not be liable for duty during the interregnum period between the expiration of the provisional anti-dumping duty notification and the introduction of a subsequent notification. The appellant's appeal was dismissed by the lower appellate authority, citing a precedent set by a Larger bench of the Tribunal in a previous case. The appellant relied on decisions by the Hon'ble High Courts of Bombay and Kerala, which upheld the government's power to levy final anti-dumping duty from the date of the provisional duty's introduction, even if the provisional duty notification had expired.Analysis:The Tribunal considered the legal position as established by the Hon'ble High Courts of Bombay and Kerala, which affirmed the government's authority to impose final anti-dumping duty from the date of provisional duty imposition under Rule 20(2) of the Anti-Dumping Duty Rules. The Tribunal concurred with the lower authorities' findings and concluded that the government had the power to levy anti-dumping duty from the date of provisional duty imposition, even during the interregnum period. As a result, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding no merit in the appellant's argument against the imposition of anti-dumping duty during the transitional period.This judgment clarifies the legal stance on the imposition of anti-dumping duty during interregnum periods and affirms the government's authority to levy such duties from the date of provisional duty imposition. The decision aligns with precedents set by the Hon'ble High Courts of Bombay and Kerala, providing a clear framework for the application of anti-dumping duties in transitional periods between the expiration of provisional notifications and the introduction of subsequent notifications.