TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court orders prompt decision on anti-dumping duty representations, allowing correct duty rates and goods release without bank guarantee.</h1> The Court directed the respondents to promptly decide on the petitioner's representations regarding the anti-dumping duty, allowing the petitioner to ... Detention of goods - levy of Anti-Dumping Duty - non-finalization of provisional assessment - HELD THAT:- There would be no useful purpose in seeking counter or keeping the writ petition pending, in view of the notification dated 14.06.2017 and corrigendum dated 25.01.2019 which is co-relating to the name of the exporter/producer in the invoices. The 2nd respondent to take decision on the series of representations referred to Ext.P10 to P16 in accordance with law, after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioners - Petition disposed off. Issues: Anti-dumping duty on imported vitrified tiles from China, detention of goods due to discrepancies in invoices, delay in finalizing provisional assessment, failure to take action on representations made by the petitioner.Analysis:1. Anti-dumping duty notification: The petitioner, a partnership firm engaged in importing vitrified tiles from China, faced detention of goods by the respondents due to discrepancies in the invoice details not correlating with the names of producers or exporters mentioned in the anti-dumping duty notification issued by the Ministry of Finance. The petitioner imported goods based on commercial invoices but encountered challenges in clearance due to the mismatch in names.2. Corrigendum for rectification: The Ministry issued a corrigendum to rectify spelling errors in the names of producers and exporters mentioned in the notification, aligning them with the names on the invoices submitted by the petitioner. Despite the corrigendum, the provisional assessment of the goods was not finalized, leading to the petitioner submitting a bank guarantee for the release of the detained goods.3. Delay and representations: The petitioner made several representations from January 2019 to March 2020, seeking clearance of the goods by claiming the applicable anti-dumping duty rate as per the corrected details. However, no action was taken by the respondents on these representations, causing further delay in resolving the issue and finalizing the assessment for duty payment.4. Court's decision: After hearing both parties' counsels, the Court refrained from expressing an opinion on the case's merits but directed the respondents to make a decision promptly. The Court emphasized the need for the respondents to permit the petitioner to claim the anti-dumping duty at the correct rate mentioned in the notification, enabling the petitioner to seek the release of the goods and absolve the bank guarantee. The Court instructed the 2nd respondent to decide on the representations made by the petitioner within one month, following the law and providing an opportunity for a hearing to the petitioners.In conclusion, the Court disposed of the writ petition, highlighting the importance of aligning the invoice details with the corrected names in the anti-dumping duty notification to facilitate the clearance of goods and the resolution of the ongoing issue faced by the petitioner.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
