Tribunal upholds customs notification validity post-duty expiry based on Supreme Court clarification

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, ruling that the customs notification dated 09.06.2020 was valid. The Tribunal held that the notification could be issued after the expiry of the earlier duty, as clarified by the Supreme Court. Additionally, the Tribunal found that section 6 of the 2020 Relaxation Act extended the time limit for issuing notifications, including the one in question, making the notification valid under the extended time limit.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the customs notification dated 09.06.2020 issued after the expiry of the existing anti-dumping duty on 06.04.2020.
2. Applicability of section 6 of the Taxation and other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020 [2020 Relaxation Act] to extend the period for issuing the notification.

Issue-Wise Comprehensive Details:

Issue 1: Validity of the Customs Notification Dated 09.06.2020
The appellant argued that the Central Government could not issue the customs notification on 09.06.2020 for the imposition of anti-dumping duty as the earlier duty imposed by notification dated 07.04.2015 expired on 06.04.2020. According to the appellant, the first proviso to section 9A(5) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 mandates that the duty extension must occur before the expiry of the existing duty. The appellant relied on the Supreme Court's judgment in Union of India vs. Kumho Petrochemicals Company Limited and the Delhi High Court's judgment in Forech India Ltd. vs. The Designated Authority & Ors.

The Tribunal, however, noted that the Supreme Court in Kumho Petrochemicals had clarified that a notification for imposition of anti-dumping duty could be issued even after the expiry of the five-year period or the extended period of one year, but during the interregnum period, there would be no duty. This interpretation was supported by the language of the first proviso to section 9A(5), which allows the Central Government to extend the period of such imposition from the date of the order of such extension. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that the notification dated 09.06.2020 was valid even though issued after the expiry of the earlier duty on 06.04.2020.

Issue 2: Applicability of Section 6 of the 2020 Relaxation Act
The appellant contended that section 6 of the 2020 Relaxation Act did not apply to the impugned customs notification. The appellant argued that section 6 extends the time limit specified in the Customs Tariff Act for issuing notifications, but section 9A(5) does not prescribe any time limit for issuing a notification for the imposition of anti-dumping duty. The appellant asserted that section 6 does not extend the substantive precondition that anti-dumping duty must already be in existence for it to be extended.

The Tribunal found merit in the respondents' argument that section 6 of the 2020 Relaxation Act extends the time limit specified in the Customs Tariff Act for issuing notifications falling between 20.03.2020 and 29.09.2020 to 30.09.2020. Since the earlier anti-dumping duty expired on 06.04.2020, which falls within this period, the time limit for issuing the notification was extended to 30.09.2020. Therefore, the notification dated 09.06.2020 was valid under the extended time limit provided by section 6 of the 2020 Relaxation Act.

Conclusion
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, holding that the customs notification dated 09.06.2020 was valid both under the interpretation of section 9A(5) of the Customs Tariff Act and the extended time limit provided by section 6 of the 2020 Relaxation Act.

(Order pronounced on 22.03.2023)

---