TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the application for safeguard duty was maintainable at the instance of the claimed domestic industry under Rule 5 of the Customs Tariff (Identification and Assessment of Safeguard Duty) Rules, 1997 and Section 8B(6)(b) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975; and whether interim protection against recovery of safeguard duty was warranted pending consideration of the challenge.
Analysis: The petitioner disputed the basis on which the domestic industry's collective production was computed and contended that the applicants did not constitute the major share of total production in India. It was also contended that the capacity utilisation of the applicants was high and that the domestic demand and import requirement showed that the impugned safeguard duty would affect imports substantially. The order records these submissions and, at the interim stage, directed notice and granted provisional protection by permitting release of goods without immediate payment of safeguard duty on execution of a bond, while reserving the respondent's right to recover duty if the notification was ultimately upheld.
Outcome: Notice issued and ad-interim relief granted in favour of the petitioner; no final adjudication on the challenge to the safeguard duty notification.
TaxTMI 
