Pre-deposit of differential anti-dumping duty quashed where enhanced levy arose from retrospective notification and appeals had to be heard on merits.

Pre-deposit of differential anti-dumping duty was held unjustified where the imports had been made after the earlier duty had already been paid and the enhanced demand arose only because a later notification was given retrospective effect. The HC did not examine the merits of the appeals or the validity of the notification, but found that the petitioners should not be required to deposit the differential amount as a condition for hearing. The pre-deposit orders were quashed and the appeals were directed to be heard on merits in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioners could be directed to make pre-deposit of the differential anti-dumping duty demanded on imports made before the enhanced notification.

Analysis: The petitioners had imported the goods during the period when the duty applicable under the earlier notification had already been paid. The enhanced demand arose only because of a later notification giving the increased duty retrospective effect. Without entering into the merits of the appeals or pronouncing upon the validity of the notification, the Court found that in the circumstances of the case the petitioners ought not to have been asked to deposit the differential amount as a pre-condition for hearing of the appeals.

Conclusion: The pre-deposit orders were unjustified and were quashed; the appeals were to be heard on merits in accordance with law.

---