High Court directs petitioners to appeal anti-dumping duty on PTA from Thailand & Korea

The High Court directed the petitioners to file an appeal against the final findings and notification challenging the imposition of anti-dumping duty on Purified Terephthalic Acid (PTA) from Thailand and Korea. The court clarified that no anti-dumping duty can be levied or collected during the "gap period" between the lapse of provisional duty and the imposition of final duty, in line with the Supreme Court decision in Commissioner of Customs, Bangalore v. G.M. Exports. The judgment stressed adherence to this ruling to prevent any duty imposition during the "gap period."

---

---

Issues:
Challenging imposition of anti-dumping duty on Purified Terephthalic Acid (PTA) from Thailand and Korea.

Merits of the Matter:
The petitioners challenged the imposition of anti-dumping duty on PTA from Thailand and Korea. The court noted that the petitioners should have filed an appeal under Section 9C of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, instead of a writ petition. However, the court granted the petitioners liberty to file an appeal against the final findings and notification on merits. The respondents assured not to raise the issue of limitation if the appeal is filed within two weeks. The court expected the Custom Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) to dispose of the appeal expeditiously, preferably within six months.

Retrospectivity of Anti-Dumping Duty:
The court analyzed the retrospectivity of the anti-dumping duty imposed from the provisional duty date to the notification date. The court referred to the Supreme Court judgment in Commissioner of Customs, Bangalore v. G.M. Exports, clarifying Rule 20(2)(a) of the Customs Tariff Rules, 1995. The Supreme Court held that no duty can be collected during the "gap period" between the lapse of provisional duty and the imposition of final duty. This decision was crucial in determining that no anti-dumping duty can be levied or collected during the "gap period." The court declared that, to avoid Rule 20(2)(a) being ultra vires Section 9A, no duty can be imposed during the "gap period."

Conclusion:
The High Court disposed of the writ petition with directions for the petitioners to file an appeal against the final findings and notification on merits. The court clarified that no anti-dumping duty can be levied or collected during the "gap period" between the lapse of provisional duty and the imposition of final duty. The judgment emphasized adherence to the Supreme Court decision in G.M. Exports regarding the retrospectivity of anti-dumping duty.

---