Appellant denied anti-dumping duty exemption based on timing of bill of entry filing.

The majority decision, including the opinion of Member (Technical) and the third member, held that the appellant was not entitled to the exemption from anti-dumping duty. The key points were that the rate of duty applicable is determined by the date of filing the bill of entry for home consumption, which was after the amendment introduced by Notification 24/2013 came into force, denying the exemption for authorizations made transferable by the Regional Authority. The appellant's reliance on previous case law was distinguished, emphasizing the importance of the specific wordings and dates of applicability in customs notifications.

---

---

Issues Involved:

1. Entitlement to exemption from anti-dumping duty under Notification 98/2009 dated 11.09.2009.
2. Applicability of Notification 24/2013 dated 18.04.2013.
3. Interpretation and applicability of Notification 45/2013 dated 17.09.2013.
4. Relevance of previous case law and judicial precedents.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Entitlement to Exemption from Anti-Dumping Duty under Notification 98/2009:
The appellant argued that they were entitled to exemption from anti-dumping duty based on Notification 98/2009 dated 11.09.2009, which allowed imports without payment of duties, including anti-dumping duty, under a valid DFIA. The DFIA was transferred to the appellant on 09.04.2013, before the amendment introduced by Notification 24/2013.

2. Applicability of Notification 24/2013:
The respondent contended that the exemption from anti-dumping duty was not available due to the amendment made by Notification 24/2013 dated 18.04.2013, which stated that the exemption would not apply to materials imported against an authorization made transferable by the Regional Authority. The bill of entry was filed on 09.05.2013, after the amendment came into force.

3. Interpretation and Applicability of Notification 45/2013:
The appellant further argued that Notification 45/2013 dated 17.09.2013 clarified that the exemption from safeguard duty and anti-dumping duty would not be available for authorizations made transferable on or after 18.04.2013. Since their authorization was made transferable before this date (on 09.04.2013), they claimed eligibility for the exemption.

4. Relevance of Previous Case Law and Judicial Precedents:
The appellant relied on previous decisions, including Monica Electronics Ltd. and Namco Steels P. Ltd., to support their claim that the exemption should be available based on the date of the DFIA transfer. The respondent, however, cited Kasinka Trading vs. UOI to argue that exemptions are applicable based on the date of import and the prevailing notifications at that time.

Judgment Analysis:

Majority Decision:
The majority decision, including the opinion of Member (Technical) and the third member, held that the appellant was not entitled to the exemption from anti-dumping duty. The key points were:

1. Section 15 of the Customs Act, 1962: The rate of duty applicable is determined by the date of filing the bill of entry for home consumption. In this case, the bill of entry was filed on 09.05.2013, when Notification 24/2013 was already in force, denying the exemption for authorizations made transferable by the Regional Authority.

2. Notification 45/2013: The amendment introduced by Notification 45/2013 dated 17.09.2013 was prospective and not retrospective. It clarified that exemptions would not apply to authorizations made transferable on or after 18.04.2013, but this did not affect the appellant's case as the relevant date for determining duty was 09.05.2013.

3. Case Law: Previous case laws cited by the appellant were distinguished on the grounds that they dealt with changes in the Foreign Trade Policy and not with amendments to customs notifications. The specific wording of the notifications and the dates of their applicability were crucial in this case.

Conclusion:
The majority decision upheld the denial of the exemption from anti-dumping duty based on the amendments introduced by Notification 24/2013. The appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was held liable to pay the anti-dumping duty as per the prevailing notification on the date of filing the bill of entry.

---