2017 (10) TMI 366 - AT - Customs

Tribunal Invalidates Anti-Dumping Duty Imposed Between Notifications

M/s. Picasso Overseas Versus Commissioner of Customs (Import), Chennai

The Tribunal held that the imposition of Anti-Dumping Duty (ADD) during the interregnum period between provisional and final notifications was ... ADD - import of CFL lamps with/without choke from China during the period August to December 2002 - N/N. 129/2001 dated 21.12.2001 - Held that: - the issue whether ADD can be levied during the interregnum period from 21.6.2002 to 9.12.2002, that is from the date of provisional ADD Notification and the imposition of final ADD by subsequent notification, now stands settled by the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Customs Vs. G.M. Exports [2015 (9) TMI 1162 - SUPREME COURT], where it was held that there can be no levy of anti-dumping duty in the “gap” or interregnum period between the lapse of the provisional duty and the imposition of the final duty - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. Issues:1. Validity of Anti-Dumping Duty (ADD) Notification2. Compliance with predeposit orders3. Imposition of ADD during the interregnum periodAnalysis:1. Validity of Anti-Dumping Duty (ADD) Notification:The case involved the import of CFL lamps with/without choke from China during a specific period. Initially, duty was paid under provisional assessment pending clarification on the validity of ADD Notification No. 129/2001. Subsequently, a final notification was issued, making the duty payment effective from a prior date. The department raised a demand for the differential duty due to the time gap. Despite various proceedings, including appeals and remands, the issue of liability to pay ADD was contested. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the original authority's decision, leading to the present appeal.2. Compliance with predeposit orders:Throughout the proceedings, there were instances where the appellant was directed to predeposit the duty along with interest. However, the appellant failed to comply with these orders, leading to rejections of appeals and subsequent modifications. The Tribunal, in a previous order, directed the Commissioner (Appeals) to pass a speaking order on merits without insisting on any predeposit. This issue of compliance with predeposit orders was crucial in the overall appeal process.3. Imposition of ADD during the interregnum period:During the hearing, the appellant's counsel referred to a judgment by the Hon'ble Apex Court in a similar case, establishing the settled principle regarding the imposition of ADD during the interregnum period between provisional and final notifications. Following this precedent, the Tribunal held the imposition of ADD during this period as unsustainable, setting aside the impugned order and allowing the appeal with consequential relief.In conclusion, the judgment addressed the issues of the validity of ADD Notification, compliance with predeposit orders, and the imposition of ADD during the interregnum period. The Tribunal's decision was based on settled legal principles and relevant precedents, ultimately allowing the appeal with consequential relief.