Strict construction of customs exemption notifications led to denial of anti-dumping duty relief for a transferred DFIA claim.

Exemption from anti-dumping duty on imports against a DFIA transferred after the amended cut-off date was denied. The policy amendment under the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 was treated as prospective and not as extinguishing vested rights retrospectively, but the Tribunal held it could not disregard the amended customs notification that governed the exemption claim. Because exemption notifications are construed strictly and their validity cannot be collaterally challenged before the Tribunal, the claim for exemption was rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether exemption from antidumping duty was available on imports made against a DFIA that was transferred after the cutoff date fixed by the amended Foreign Trade Policy and corresponding customs notification.

Analysis: The exemption regime in force on the date of issuance of the DFIA initially permitted benefit against such imports, but the policy was later amended to withdraw exemption for DFIA transfers made on or after 18.04.2013. The Tribunal accepted that policy amendments under the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 operate prospectively and do not take away vested rights retrospectively. However, the impugned denial rested on the amended customs notification, and the Tribunal held that it could not ignore or sit in appeal over the validity or correctness of that notification. Exemption notifications are to be construed strictly, and the remedy against an allegedly invalid notification lies elsewhere.

Conclusion: The exemption from antidumping duty was not granted, and the claim was rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: A customs exemption notification must be applied as it stands, and a tribunal cannot refuse to enforce it on equity or by indirectly questioning its validity; exemption provisions are subject to strict interpretation.

---