Substituted customs notification entries operate retrospectively when unqualified, defeating anti-dumping duty on excluded imports.

A substituted entry in Notification No. 5/2016-Cus.(ADD) was treated as operating retrospectively because the word "substituted" was used without any express prospective limitation, so the amended entry was read into the principal notification from its original date. On that interpretation, goods classifiable under CTH 5402 2090 were outside the anti-dumping levy, and duty already paid was held refundable. The court also noted that the dispute involved interpretation of the notification itself, so the writ remedy was not barred by the availability of an alternative appellate route. The refund claim was therefore held maintainable.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether Notification No. 5/2016-Cus.(ADD) dated 22.02.2016, substituting entry 5402 in Notification No. 51/2015-Cus.(ADD), is retrospective in operation; (ii) whether the petitioner was liable to pay anti-dumping duty on goods classifiable under CTH 5402 2090 and entitled to refund of duty already paid.

Issue (i): Whether Notification No. 5/2016-Cus.(ADD) dated 22.02.2016, substituting entry 5402 in Notification No. 51/2015-Cus.(ADD), is retrospective in operation.

Analysis: The notification used the expression "substituted", which indicates replacement of the earlier entry in the principal notification. Applying the settled principle that a substituted provision is to be read as if the altered words were written into the earlier instrument, the amended entry must be treated as part of the principal notification from its original date. No separate limiting language was found to confine the amendment only to the future.

Conclusion: The notification dated 22.02.2016 is retrospective in operation.

Issue (ii): Whether the petitioner was liable to pay anti-dumping duty on goods classifiable under CTH 5402 2090 and entitled to refund of duty already paid.

Analysis: Once the principal notification dated 21.10.2015 is read as containing entry 5402 47 from its inception, the goods imported by the petitioner, which fell outside that description, were not covered by the anti-dumping levy. The court also held that the matter raised a substantial question on interpretation of the notification, so the petitioner need not be relegated to the alternative appellate remedy.

Conclusion: The petitioner was not liable to pay anti-dumping duty on the subject goods and was entitled to refund consideration.

Final Conclusion: The refund claim was held maintainable, the levy was held inapplicable to the petitioner's imports, and both writ petitions were allowed.

Ratio Decidendi: A substituted entry in a fiscal notification, when expressed without prospective limitation, operates from the date of the principal notification and must be read as part of that notification from inception.

---